This section explores yet another way in which – sometimes – the vague negligence standard of reasonableness can be supplemented: negligence per se. In those rare (and happy?) occasions in which a rule of behavior is laid down by the law – for the purpose of safety, and perhaps as part of the criminal canon – we see courts willing to adopt the law itself as the standard of care. When this is done, it does not merely provide a basis for inference as res ipsa does, but rather substitutes for the standard itself. If the conditions for NPS are met and the law can be shown to be broken, the defendant is liable (or, if contributory negligence is claimed as the candidate for NPS, the plaintiff’s case is lost).
The cases here provide good examples of when the doctrine works – and when exceptions to its application are sought and granted.EDIT PLAYLIST INFORMATION DELETE PLAYLIST
Edit playlist item notes below to have a mix of public & private notes, or:MAKE ALL NOTES PUBLIC (2/2 playlist item notes are public) MAKE ALL NOTES PRIVATE (0/2 playlist item notes are private)
|1||Show/Hide More||X.A. The Basic Doctrine|
|1.1||Show/Hide More||Martin v. Herzog--"The Buggy Without Lights"|
|2||Show/Hide More||X.B. The Objective of the Statute|
|2.1||Show/Hide More||Platz v. City of Cohoes--"The Sunday Carriage Accident"|
|2.2||Show/Hide More||Brown v. Shyne--“The Unlicensed, Paralyzing Chiropractor”|
|2.3||Show/Hide More||Rushink v. Gerstheimer--"The Key in the Ignition Case"|
|2.4||Show/Hide More||Robinson v. District of Columbia--"The Jaywalking Custom Case"|
|2.5||Show/Hide More||Tedla v. Ellman--"Walking on the Other Side of the Highway"|
September 15, 2015
Harvard Law School, Berkman Center
This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at email@example.com. Thank you.