Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Negligence per se ( another misconce

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
George Hakim wrote:

>>Charles O Greenlaw wrote: An EOR violating the building code is negligent 
per se

This is true, however the plaintiff still must prove that this violation 
actually AND proximately caused the damages complained of.  Negligence per se 
simply proves that the EOR had a duty and had breached that duty. The rest of 
a negligence analysis must be proven by the plaintiff. You can be proven to
have breached a duty, but if your acts did not proximately caused the 
damages, you are NOT liable.<<

Not being a lawyer, I probably don't understand the subtleties of the law, 
but it is my understanding that:

1. A person cannot be held liable for stupidity.

2. There is a difference between *gross* negligence and *simple* negligence.

A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural)
Tucson, Arizona

P.S.  Bear in mind that things have been explained to me (more than once) 
regarding Arizona law, not California law, and I claim absolute stupidity 
about either one!