We've mentioned before that negligence per se requires a
claimed violation of a definite enactment – like a 70 mile
per hour speed limit – that can substitute for the ordinary
negligence "reasonable man" standard. However, we've
never really studied it closely. Because negligence per se seems to
be flowing rather than ebbing in prescription medical product
liability litigation these days, we thought we'd give that
concept a closer look.
As stated in our prior post, from way back in 2007,
vagueness is one of our "big five" negligence per se
elements that state law (in most, if not all, jurisdictions)
imposes:
Negligence per se must be consistent with the intent of whatever
body enacted the provision allegedly violated.
