A commercial truck driver, while delivering goods, illegally parked his large truck in a no-parking zone directly in front of a busy crosswalk, completely obstructing the view of oncoming traffic for pedestrians. A child, attempting to cross the street at the crosswalk, stepped into the street without seeing an approaching car due to the truck's obstruction and was struck by the car. The child suffered serious injuries. The truck driver's actions were a violation of a city ordinance. In the child's negligence lawsuit against the truck driver, which of the following legal doctrines is most likely to establish the truck driver's breach of duty?
- ARes ipsa loquitur, as the accident would not have occurred without negligence.
- BThe attractive nuisance doctrine, given the child's age.
- CThe last clear chance doctrine, as the truck driver could have prevented the accident.
- DNegligence per se, due to the violation of the city ordinance.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: D. Negligence per se, due to the violation of the city ordinance.
Negligence per se applies when a defendant violates a statute or ordinance designed to protect a particular class of persons from a particular type of harm, and the plaintiff is a member of that class and suffers that type of harm. Here, the parking ordinance is designed to protect pedestrians (a class of persons) from traffic accidents (a type of harm), and the child, a pedestrian, suffered that harm.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. Res ipsa loquitur is used when the cause of the accident is unknown but strongly suggests negligence. Here, the cause (illegal parking obstructing view) is known.
- B. The attractive nuisance doctrine applies to landowners and dangerous conditions on their land that attract children, which is not applicable to an illegally parked truck on a public street.
- C. The last clear chance doctrine is a defense to contributory negligence, not a doctrine to establish a defendant's breach of duty.
Negligence Per Se
A doctrine in tort law where a defendant's unexcused violation of a statute or ordinance establishes a breach of duty as a matter of law, if the statute was designed to protect a class of persons which includes the plaintiff from the type of harm which occurred.
- Defendant violated a statute or ordinance.
- Statute designed to protect a specific class of persons.
- Plaintiff is a member of that protected class.
- Harm suffered is of the type the statute was designed to prevent.
- Violation was unexcused.
Memory trick: Res Ipsa, Per Se: Two Ways to Prove Breach with Ease.