What is negligence per se?

Although compliance with the law does not prove the absence of negligence, violation of the law does raise a presumption that the violator was negligent. This is called negligence per se. Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo, Inc. v. Western Farm Service, Inc. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1502, 1526.

The necessary elements of negligence per se are:

  1. plaintiff violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation of a public entity;
  2. the violation proximately caused death or injury to person or property;
  3. the death or injury resulted from an occurrence of the nature which the statute, ordinance, or regulation was designed to prevent; and
  4. the person suffering death or the injury to his person or property was one the class of persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance, or regulation was adopted.

Evid. Code, § 669(a).

Negligence per se is not a distinct cause of action, but merely creates a presumption affecting the standard of care for negligence. Johnson v. Honeywell Int'l Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 549, 555.

The defendant may rebut a presumption of negligence but only with evidence establishing a justification or excuse for the statutory violation. Spriesterbach v. Holland (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 255, 263; 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 306, (internal citation omitted).

Useful Rulings on Negligence Per Se

Recent Rulings on Negligence Per Se

HAGOP TCHAKERIAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

First Cause of Action: Negligence Per Se “The negligence per se doctrine, as codified in Evidence Code section 669, creates a presumption of negligence if four elements are established: (1) the defendant violated a statute, ordinance or regulation of a public entity; (2) the violation proximately caused death or injury to person or property; (3) the death or injury resulted from an occurrence of the nature of which the statute, ordinance, or regulation was designed to prevent; and (4) the person suffering the

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DANIEL FLORES CAMPO, ET AL. VS AMPCO CONTRACTING, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

The Plaintiffs allege negligence, negligence per se, premises liability, and loss of consortium in relation to a September 28, 2018 incident where Plaintiffs Daniel Flores Campo and Roman Hernandez Aguilar fell through a roof. On January 9, 2020, Defendant/Cross-Complainant GLC El Monte LLC filed a cross-complainant against Roes 1 through 50 seeking equitable indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

JEFFREY FRASCO, ET AL. VS DOMAEN LTD., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Lowe, Axel Schmitzberger, Blanca Cano dba Cano Masonry, and Ruggeri Marble and Granite, Inc. for (1) negligence; (2) negligent supervision; (3) negligence per se; (4) breach of contracts re construction defects; (5) breach of contract re substantial completion; (6) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (7) breach of fiduciary duty; (8) breach of express warranty; (9) breach of implied warranty; (10) unjust enrichment/restitution; (11) accounting; (12) common count: money had and received

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

THE ESTATE OF ROOP GARG ET AL VS JOHN C WEI ET AL

Wei, Paul Ordinario, Behrooz Sumekh, and Yu Hung Kam alleging negligence, negligence per se, premises liability, wrongful death, and survival action for the death of Decedent Roop Garg (“Decedent”), which occurred on August 11, 2016. On August 8, 2018, Defendant/Cross-Complainant John C. Wei filed a cross-complaint against Defendants/Cross-Defendants Paul Ordinario, Behrooz Sumekh, and Yu Hung Kam seeking indemnity and declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

POGHOS KAREN "GARY" MADATYAN VS MELANIE JANINE "MEL B" BROWN, ET AL.

Negligence per se is an evidentiary doctrine, that, if established, merely raises a presumption of negligence. (Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1285.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GENOVEVA OSUNA VS LUIS ENRIQUE PENA JR ET AL

., Jorge Trinidad Mendez Arellano, and Does 1-25 (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging causes of action for negligence and negligence per se for a motor vehicle collision that occurred on April 20, 2016. On February 10, 2020, Peter Hong, counsel for Plaintiff (“Counsel”), filed a motion to be relieved as counsel pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2). On March 17, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on the motion to be relieved as counsel to May 1, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

BARBOT V. CONWELL

On June 3, 2019 plaintiff County of El Dorado filed an action under Case Number PC- 20190283 against defendants Bonita Conwell and Kathleen Kelley asserting causes of action for negligence and negligence per se (Violations of Vehicle Code) seeking reimbursement of workers compensation benefits that the County incurred as a result of a July 14, 2017 motor vehicle accident involving County Employee Robert Barbot, defendant Conwell, and defendant Kelley.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Negligence per se is not a separate tort cause of action and Plaintiff cannot obtain damages for both negligence and negligence per se arising out of the same accident. Rather, negligence per set is an evidentiary doctrine whereby negligence may be presumed if the evidentiary requirements are met. (Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1285 [“the doctrine of negligence per se does not establish tort liability.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

THOMAS O'BRIEN VS LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ET

BATO’s original Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication did not expressly address Plaintiff’s causes of action for Negligence and Negligence Per Se, except on the limited issue of causation. The Court ruled that a triable issue of material fact exists with respect to causation, and denied summary judgment.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JANE N.R. DOE, ET AL. V. LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

The 2018 Action alleges causes of action for (1) negligent supervision (against Lucia Mar and the High School), (2) negligent training (against Lucia Mar and the High School), (3) negligence per se (against Lucia Mar and the High School), (4) negligence (against all Defendants), (5) sexual harassment (against all Defendants), (6) sexual harassment in educational setting (against Lucia Mar and the High School), (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress (against all Defendants), (8) sexual battery (against

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

RIKA WAKAHARA VS STEVEN C DRESNER ET AL

Negligence Per Se. Defendants each move for orders granting summary adjudication as to the second through fourth causes of action of the Second Amended Complaint as follows: Issue 1: Plaintiff’s claim for Medical Battery lacks merit. Issue 2: Plaintiff’s claim for Fraudulent Concealment lacks merit. Issue 3: Plaintiff’s claim for Negligence Per Se lacks merit.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

MANUEL CRUZ VS EDUARDO LLAMAS CABRERA

Negligence Per Se (v. Wells Fargo) 5. [sic, erroneously labeled as the “6th cause of action”] Negligence (v. all Defendants) 6. [sic, erroneously labeled as the “7th cause of action”] Premises Liability (v. Wells Fargo) Defendant opposes the addition of Negligence Per Se, which could have been alleged in the original complaint. However, the new allegations “relate back” to the original negligence claims, and therefore, there is no bar to its later assertion.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HONG MAI, ET AL. VS TERE'S MEXICAN GRILL, AN UNKNOWN BUSINESS ENTITY, ET AL.

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on April 9, 2019 alleging six (6) causes of action sounding in: (1) Nuisance; (2) Nuisance Per Se; (3) Trespass; (4) Negligence; (5) Negligence Per Se; and (6) Injunctive Relief. On May 7, 2019, Teres Entities filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiffs Hong Mai and Roman Shchur alleging one (1) cause of action sounding in False Accusations and Infringement Claims. PRESENTATION: Teres Entities filed the instant motion on February 26, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

IN THE MATTER OF: NAKIA ROUSIE , ET AL.

Elsheikh, who states that he honestly believed the July 5, 2019 claim covered the claims subsequently added in the FAC and SAC for failure to provide medical treatment, negligent hiring, violation of Civil Code section 2100, and negligence per se. (Elsheikh Decl., ¶ 4.). He also states that in or about November 2019, he became aware of these potential claims. (Id., ¶ 6.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

IN THE MATTER OF: NAKIA ROUSIE , ET AL.

Elsheikh, who states that he honestly believed the July 5, 2019 claim covered the claims subsequently added in the FAC and SAC for failure to provide medical treatment, negligent hiring, violation of Civil Code section 2100, and negligence per se. (Elsheikh Decl., ¶ 4.). He also states that in or about November 2019, he became aware of these potential claims. (Id., ¶ 6.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

A F VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

. § 1983 for Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment violations against Defendant Kamiya, (5) violations of the Unruh Act (Civil Code §§ 51 et seq.) against all defendants, (6) violations of the Ralph Act (Civil Code § 51.7) against all defendants, (7) false imprisonment against all defendants, (8) battery against all defendants, (9) assault against all defendants, (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress against all defendants, (11) negligent supervision against all defendants, (12) negligence per se, violation

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

EVANINA ALANIZ, ET AL. VS AMG CARE FIGUEROA, LLC, ET AL.

Negligence Per Se / Breach of Mandatory Duty Defendant County demurs to Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action of negligence per se in part on grounds that negligence per se is not an independent cause of action. “The doctrine [of negligence per se] does not provide a private right of action for violation of a statute. [Citation.]

  • Hearing

    Jul 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PRISCILLA PEREZ ET AL VS ALFONSO SOLORANZO ET AL

BACKGROUND On September 14, 2017, Plaintiffs Priscilla Perez and Pamela Perez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Alfonso Soloranzo, Rafael Camacho, and Does 1-50 (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging causes of action for negligence, negligence per se, and statutory liability for a motor vehicle collision that occurred on September 2, 2015.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

JOHN V. ROGERS, AN INDIVIDUAL VS ALAMO RENT-A-CAR, ET AL.

Negligence and Negligence Per Se Plaintiff concedes the first cause of action for negligence cannot be maintained against Enterprise in light of the Graves Amendment, as the first cause of action seeks to impose vicarious liability against Enterprise for the negligence of the rental car driver. The demurrer to the first cause of action is therefore sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiff argues, however, that the cause of action for negligence per se is proper and can be maintained.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

MONICA LOPEZ VS CENERGY INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, LLC

Per Se Cause of Action #9: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Cause of Action #10: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress On May 8, 2019, this Court granted Defendant’s demurrer to Cause of Actions Nos. 8-10 without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

FERRALLES V CLIFTON HOUSE FOUR-PLEXES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 2019 -

First cause of action for Negligence Per Se: Although the SAC labels the first cause of action as negligence, Plaintiff’s opposition to the demurrer makes it clear that Plaintiff is alleging negligence under the doctrine of negligence per se. Negligence per se is “an evidentiary doctrine codified at Evidence Code section 669.” (Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1285.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

DONALD BARRON VS WARNER BROS RECORDS INC ET AL

Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff’s offer to amend the Complaint to assert negligent entrustment might produce allegations against Endeavor that would result in a claim under the second cause of action for negligent entrustment, rather than the first claim for general negligence and negligence per se. Therefore, the Court finds merit in Endeavor’s contentions that Plaintiff’s allegations are too uncertain to discern the nature of the claims against it.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ARMANDO MARTINEZ VS CITADEL OUTLETS ET AL

On December 14, 2018, Plaintiff-in-Intervention Starr Indemnity & Liability Company filed a complaint-in-intervention against Defendant/Cross-Defendant Citadel Outlets and Craig Reality Group, Inc. alleging negligence, negligence per se, and premises liability. On March 19, 2019, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Craig Realty Group Citadel LLC and Cross-Complainant Eureka Realty Partners, Inc. d.b.a.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

CHASE COVELLO, ET AL. VS SHARIFF FAMILY DAYCARE, A CALIFORNIA COMPANY, ET AL.

Third Cause of Action: Negligent Supervision; Fifth Cause of Action: Negligence Per Se; Sixth Cause of Action: Negligent Supervision, Retention, and Hiring In order to state a claim for negligence, Plaintiff must allege (1) “the existence of a legal duty of care,” (2) “breach of that duty” and (3) “proximate cause resulting in an injury.” (McIntyre v. Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

LAURA ESQUIVEL ET AL VS MENZIES AVIATION USA INC ET AL

BACKGROUND On September 27, 2018, plaintiffs Laura Esquivel and Margarita De La O filed a complaint against Menzies Aviation (USA) Inc. and Arturo Diazibarra for (1) negligence, (2) negligence per se, and (3) statutory liability for personal injuries as a result of an incident where plaintiffs were driving on a service road at LAX when they were hit by an aircraft tug driven by Diazibarra. Trial is set for December 1, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 71     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.