Zeni v. Anderson

Supreme Court of Michigan, 1976.

397 Mich. 117, 243 N.W.2d 270.

Facts: The plaintiff was walking in a roadway facing away from traffic on a snowy day when the sidewalk was impassible.  The defendant hit her.  The plaintiff sued, but the defendant claimed that the plaintiff’s conduct constituted contributory negligence because it was a violation of statute to fail to use the sidewalk or to walk in the street facing towards traffic.  The jury found for the plaintiff but the verdict was reversed on appeal.  The plaintiff appealed in turn.

Issue: Was the jury right in finding the plaintiff negligent?

Rule: Out of three possible rules, this court chooses the following: Violation of an applicable statute only makes a prima facie case for negligence that may be rebutted if it can be shown that the violation is excusable.

Analysis: The court finds that the statute that is relevant to the current case gives the jury a clear guideline for determining whether the plaintiff was negligent and whether such negligence contributed to the plaintiff’s injury.  The court concludes that the jury was correctly and adequately instructed.

Conclusion: The court reverses the decision of the appellate court and affirms the jury verdict.

Martin v. Herzog

COA NY - 1920

Facts:
P and her husband were driving at night in a buggy with the lights off.
They were hit by the D's car while rounding the curve. P's husband was killed in the accident.
P sued D in negligence. D argued that P's conduct amounted to contributory negligence since there is a statute that requires vehicles to use lights.

Procedural History:
Trial court found for P.
Appellate court reversed, remanded.
COA NY affirmed.

Issues:
Can a negligence per se argument be utilized by D in order to prove P was negligent and avoid liability?
Should the violation of a statute be determined by the court to be negligence per se or should that issue be left to the jury?

Holding/Rule:
A negligence per se argument can be utilized by D in order to prove P was negligent and avoid liability.
The violation of a statute should be determined by the court to be negligence per se. It is not a jury issue.

Reasoning:
The failure to use lights was definitely a negligent act.
The trial court instructed the jury to treat the P's behavior as culpable or as innocent, any way that they chose.
Jurors should not have the discretion to relax the duty that the law imposes on individuals.
There is a causal connection between the violation of the statute and the harm suffered, so the Ps were liable for contributory negligence in this matter.

Dissent:
None.

Notes:
In proving contributory negligence as a defense, a D must show that the violation of the statute proximately caused the injury.

Stachniewicz v. Mar-Cam Corp Case Brief (violation of stutute)

Relevant Facts:
Pl (Stach) a patron of a drinking establishment was injured in a fight therein. A group of Native Americans sitting in an adjacent booth became disruptive when Pl guests refused to allow a friend’s wife to dance with them. The bartender warned PL not to start any trouble with them. The Native American’s pushed down a member of the Pl’s party and the fight began. Pl was found lying just outside. He suffered amnesia and could remember nothing. The n.a. had been drinking in the bar for 2.5 hours before the fight.

Legal Issue(s): Whether violations of statute constitute negligence as a matter of law.

 Court’s Holding: Yes
Procedure: Jury returned a verdict for Df. PL appealed. Reversed and remanded for trial.

Law or Rule(s): A violation of a statute constitutes negligence as a matter of law when the violation results in an injury to a member of a class of persons intended to be protected, and when the harm is the kind which the statute was enacted to prevent.

Court Rationale: The Act concerns matters having a direct relation to the creation of physical disturbances in bars which would create a likelihood of injury to customers. The act seeks to prevent abusive conduct and drunken clientele which results in serious injuries to customers. The bar owner’s breach of duty to protect his patrons from harm resulting from a drunken brawl is negligence. Pl was within a class intended to be protected, and the harm caused was the kind the statute intended to prevent.

Plaintiff’s Argument: The Pl was injured in a bar, by customers who were drunk.

Defendant’s Argument: The standard of care is the reasonable care that a bartender similarly situated would exercise. The Pl was injured outside the bar.

Osborne v. McMasters Case Brief (negligent per se)

Brief Fact Summary.
Defendant sold Plaintiff poison without labeling it as such. Not knowing it was poison, Plaintiff consumed it and died.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.
When a statute or municipal ordinance imposes upon any person a specific duty for the protection or benefit of others, if he neglects to perform that duty he is liable to those for which the statute was designed to protect or benefit.

Facts.
Defendant’s clerk in his drugstore sold to Plaintiff a deadly poison without labeling it as “Poison” as required be statute. Not knowing it was poison, Plaintiff consumed it and died. Plaintiff sued Defendant for negligence. Defendant appealed.

Issue.
Is Defendant negligent for the breach of duty imposed by statute?

Held. Yes. Judgment affirmed.
* In this case, Defendant was in violation of Section 329 of the Penal Code and Section 14, c. 147, Laws 1885. The purpose of these statutes was to protect the public against the dangerous qualities of poison. When a statute or municipal ordinance imposes upon any person a specific duty for the protection or benefit of others, if he neglects to perform that duty he is liable to those for which the statute was designed to protect or benefit. In this case, Plaintiff is a consumer of the poison. The statute was intended to protect Plaintiff, and Defendant violated the statute. Thus, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for the breach of duty imposed by the statutes.
* Negligence is the breach of legal duty. It is immaterial whether the duty breached is imposed by statute or by common law. The only difference is that a breach of duty imposed by common law is to be determined by common law principles. A breach of duty imposed by statue constitutes conclusive evidence of negligence, or negligence per se. In this case the statutes established a fixed standard by which the fact of negligence may be determined. In the breach of the duty imposed by statute, Defendant is negligent per se.


Discussion. Negligence can be a breach of a duty imposed by common law or a breach of a duty imposed by a statute. A breach of a duty imposed by statute is called negligence per se, it is conclusive evidence of negligence. However, to recover under negligence per se, the legislature must have intended to protect Plaintiff from an injury that they had contemplated when passing the statute, and Plaintiff must be in the group of people that the legislature intended to protect.