Understanding Negligence Per Se: When Violating a Law/Regulation = Liability

When someone breaks the law or regulation, someone else gets hurt. The legal doctrine of negligence per se can make things more straightforward for the injured party. This doctrine allows certain law violations to automatically equate to negligence, creating a powerful tool for plaintiffs.

This article explores how negligence per se functions, especially in Texas. It examines whether federal regulations can affect these claims and outlines the impact on federal question jurisdiction.

What is negligence per se?

Negligence per se is a legal doctrine that, under specific circumstances, permits plaintiffs to establish a defendant’s negligence solely by showing a violation of law. Rather than proving every element of negligence, the plaintiff can rely on the idea that breaking a law designed to protect others is inherently negligent.

Elements of negligence per se in Texas

In Texas, four critical elements must be met to claim negligence per se successfully:

1. Violation of a law or regulation: The defendant must have violated a specific law or regulation that sets a clear standard of conduct.

2. Protected class: The injured party (plaintiff) must belong to the class of individuals the law or regulation aimed to protect.

3. Intended type of injury: The injury sustained by the plaintiff must be the type of harm the law or regulation sought to prevent.

4. Proximate cause: The defendant’s violation of the law must be directly linked to the plaintiff’s injury.

For example,

Imagine a driver who runs a red light and causes an accident that injures another driver. In this case, traffic laws exist to protect all road users from harm. The injured driver is part of the protected class; the type of injury is what the law intended to prevent, and the accident was caused by the driver’s failure to stop. Therefore, negligence per se could apply, making it easier for the injured party to establish liability.

How federal regulations can apply in state negligence per se claims

Negligence per se is primarily governed by state law, and the laws cited in these cases are often state statutes or regulations. However, in some instances, courts may allow federal regulations to serve as the foundation for a negligence per se claim, provided they meet certain criteria.

Using federal regulations in Texas, negligence per se claims

In Texas, the courts sometimes allow federal regulations to form the basis for a negligence per se claim if:

1. The federal regulation establishes a clear standard of conduct.

2. The regulation explicitly protects a specific class of people.

3. The plaintiff is within that protected class and sustained an injury the regulation was designed to prevent.

Example case: Perry v. S.N.

The Texas Supreme Court case Perry v. S.N., 973 S.W.2d 301 (Tex. 1998), illustrated how federal statutes could factor into negligence per se claims under certain conditions. In Perry, the court acknowledged that federal law could apply as the foundation of a negligence per se claim if it delineates the expected behavior and the class of individuals it seeks to protect. This case set the precedent that not every federal statute or regulation would apply, especially if it lacks specific safety guidelines or does not address a protected class.

Limitations on using federal regulations

Not all federal regulations qualify for negligence per se. For instance, a federal statute that lacks clear conduct standards or doesn’t specify a protected class may not support a negligence per se claim under Texas law. Courts focus on whether the regulation was intended to prevent a particular type of harm and protect a specific group of individuals.

Section 3: Federal question jurisdiction and its relevance to negligence per se

Understanding federal question jurisdiction is key to determining when federal law cases can be heard in federal court.

Defining federal question jurisdiction

Federal question jurisdiction grants federal courts the authority to hear cases involving violations of federal law. State law cases do not fall under federal jurisdiction unless they involve substantial questions about federal law.

Federal question jurisdiction and negligence per se

Simply invoking a federal regulation as evidence in a state law claim does not automatically give rise to federal question jurisdiction. The U.S. Supreme Court case Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (1986), established that the mere presence of a federal issue in a state law claim does not qualify a case for federal court. In Merrell Dow, the Court held that if a plaintiff relies on a federal statute to prove a violation within a state negligence per se claim, this does not necessarily mean a federal court must hear the case.

Implications for plaintiffs and defendants

This means plaintiffs can use federal regulations to strengthen a negligence per se claim without necessarily moving the case to federal court. It presents an opportunity for defendants to argue against federal jurisdiction if they wish to keep the case in state court. Federal courts are cautious about asserting jurisdiction in cases where state laws are central, and this principle generally keeps negligence per se claims within state jurisdiction unless other factors compel federal oversight.

Practical applications and examples

Federal regulations can be useful in state negligence per se claims, but their use is limited to cases where they meet Texas’s specific criteria. Here are some hypothetical examples to illustrate this:

1. Safety violation by a contractor: Suppose a contractor violates a federal OSHA regulation about workplace safety, and an employee is injured. The employee might use the OSHA regulation as a basis for a negligence per se claim if they meet the other Texas requirements for this type of claim.

2. Defective product claim: If a manufacturer violates a federal product safety standard and injures a consumer, this could also serve as grounds for negligence per se. However, the court would carefully examine whether the federal regulation intended to protect consumers from this injury.

In both cases, plaintiffs could likely keep the claims within state court jurisdiction unless additional federal issues justify a move to federal court.

Conclusion

Negligence per se is a powerful tool that allows injured parties to establish liability more easily when a clear legal violation is involved. Texas law generally governs negligence per se claims, yet federal regulations can play a role in these cases if they align with specific

criteria. Federal question jurisdiction does not automatically apply just because federal laws are referenced; these cases often remain in state court unless they directly hinge on federal issues.

Plaintiffs and defendants alike should understand how federal regulations can impact state negligence per se claims, especially regarding where the case will be heard. Navigating this legal territory requires careful consideration of federal and state law—a task best suited for seasoned legal professionals. For those facing similar circumstances, consulting a knowledgeable attorney is essential for making informed decisions about jurisdiction and liability.