Most attorneys and judges don't understand negligence per se. They treat it the same as negligence; i.e., at trial, they talk about the "reasonable person" and the "reasonable care" standard of liability with no differentiation between negligence and negligence per se. But the reasonable person/reasonable care standard does not apply to many negligence per se claims. Why?
Because the standard of care in a negligence per se claim based on a statute is the standard of care contained in the statute. And, the standard of care is often not the reasonable person standard.
Take, for example, C.R.S. 42-4-702 (left turn statute): "The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left within an intersection...shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection...."
The left turn statute does not contain a standard of reasonable care.
Consider, on the other hand, C.R.S. 42-4-1402 (careless driving statute): "Any person who drives any motor vehicle, bicycle, or motorized bicycle in a careless and imprudent manner, without due regard for the width, grade, curves, corners, traffic, and use of the streets and highways and all other attendant circumstances, is guilty of careless driving."
The careless driving statute does contain a standard of reasonable care.
So how should you present (or exclude) evidence and law on a negligence per se claim that doesn't have a reasonable care standard?
Continue Reading...
