Typically, for a personal injury case to be proven, it must be shown that the defendant was engaging in some form of negligent behavior. This requirement exists to protect people from liability in the event of freak accidents which are completely unforeseeable. If a light pole is struck by lightning, causing it to collapse and strike a pedestrian, it is most likely that the property owner will not be considered liable for this injury, as no one could have predicted the chance that a pole would be struck by lightning and would subsequently strike a pedestrian.
The claim of negligence is based on the notion that we have a moral and legal duty to not expose others to risk to which we have created and to which they have not consented. If we are engaging in actions that carry with them an inherent amount of risk, we have a duty to minimize the amount of risk that we expose to others. If we fail to do so, then it is said that we are behaving negligently, and if someone is then injured as a result of our actions, we may be liable for those injuries.
INDIANAPOLIS
Typically, to prove a claim of negligence, you must show four specific factors. Firstly, that a duty of care existed; that is, the defendant was engaging in conduct which could expose others to risk. Secondly, it must be shown that the duty was breached, that the defendant failed to minimize that risk to other people. Thirdly, the breach of the duty must be the "actual and proximate" cause of the injury; there cannot be an intervening factor that was the more immediate cause of injury. Finally, it must also be shown that there were actual damages that occurred as a result of the negligence, otherwise there is no cause of action.
However, the legal doctrine of Negligence Per Se holds a person automatically negligent if it is shown that they violated a public safety statute. That is, the first two criteria are automatically fulfilled, and it must only be shown that the negligence caused the injury and there were actual damages. The logic behind the doctrine of Negligence Per Se is that criminal courts have a standard of proof far higher than that of civil courts; criminal courts adhere to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard whereas civil courts adhere to the "preponderance of evidence" standard. Thus, if the criminal courts find someone guilty of violating a statute designed to keep the public safe and free from unnecessary risk, they are considered automatically negligent in civil courts.
Negligence Per Se
If you have a question about the doctrine of Negligence Per Se, contact the Indianapolis Personal Injury attorneys at the Charles D. Hankey law office.
INDIANAPOLIS
No comments:
Post a Comment