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

RE: Negligence per se ( another misconception)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
George,
Again, the issue is not what can or can't be proven in court but how pat the
poker hand is that forces a settlement before reaching trial. How much money
is lost by bluffing? How strong of a bluff does the attorney need when he
holds in his possession a trump knowing that the defendant was not in full
compliance with the written code or provided a design at the building
officials approval which met with less than minimum compliance with the
published code?

Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: GEOHAK(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:GEOHAK(--nospam--at)aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 8:00 AM
To: seaint-return(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Cc: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: Negligence per se ( another misconception)


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
actua
lly 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.

 George Hakim