Negligence Per Se: which statement is true?

• A. It means a violation of a statute is negligence per se; municipal rule is only evidence.
• B. It means everything is negligence.
• C. It means no duty exists.
• D. It requires proving intentional tort.

Answer: (A)

Negligence per se comes into play when a statute or regulation creates a duty to act in a certain way, and a violation of that statute is treated as breach of duty if the plaintiff is within the statute’s protected class and the harm is of the type the statute aims to prevent. When these elements are met, the violation is negligence per se, meaning the defendant’s conduct is negligent as a matter of law, with the usual defenses available (such as impossibility of compliance or the plaintiff’s own contributory negligence). Local municipal rules or ordinances, on the other hand, are generally treated as evidence of negligence rather than establishing negligence per se, unless the ordinance functions like a safety statute. So the statement captures that distinction: a statute viol​ation can be negligence per se, while a municipal rule is typically only evidence of breach. The other choices don’t fit because negligence per se does not make “everything” negligent, does not negate a duty, and does not require proving an intentional tort.