New York Law (NYLE) Practice Exam

What is true regarding violations related to negligence per se?

1. A traffic violation is evidence of negligence

2. A violation of a municipal ordinance is negligence per se

3. A violation of a safety regulation under the Labor Law is evidence of negligence

4. A violation of Department of Health regulations is evidence of negligence

The correct answer is: A violation of Department of Health regulations is evidence of negligence

Negligence per se refers to a legal doctrine where an act is considered negligent because it violates a statute or regulation enacted to protect the public. When a statute or regulation is violated, it may establish a presumption of negligence, meaning that the violation itself can be sufficient to prove that a party acted unreasonably under the circumstances. The assertion that a violation of Department of Health regulations is evidence of negligence aligns with this principle. Health regulations are designed to safeguard public health and safety. If someone violates these regulations, it supports the assertion that they did not meet the standard of care expected under the law, thereby constituting negligence per se. Courts often recognize that these regulations serve a public interest and that violations are pertinent in assessing a party's conduct in a negligence claim. In contrast, while a traffic violation usually points to evidence of negligence, it does not constitute negligence per se unless it can be proven that it directly violated a statute aimed at protecting a specific class of persons. A violation of a municipal ordinance may also not automatically imply negligence per se without showing that the ordinance was intended to prevent the kind of harm that occurred. Lastly, while violations of safety regulations under labor laws can be evidence in negligence cases, they do not always amount to negligence