§ 11.2 NEGLIGENCE PER SE

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 11.2 Negligence Per Se

As a general matter, a claim for negligence per se must be based on a statute enacted "for the protection and safety of the public." Steinberger v. McVey, 234 Ariz. 125, 139, 318 P.3d 419, 433 (App. 2014). Violation of a statute created to protect a certain group is negligence per se, whether on the part of plaintiff or defendant, if the violation was a proximate cause of the damage or injury in question. Orlando v. Northcutt, 103 Ariz. 298, 299-300, 441 P.2d 58, 59-60 (1968); Deering v. Carter, 92 Ariz. 329, 332-33, 376 P.2d 857, 860-61 (1962); Campbell v. Brinson, 89 Ariz. 197, 199, 360 P.2d 211, 213 (1961). These principles apply also in the motor vehicle accident context.

The violation of a statute relating to the operation of a motor vehicle is actionable negligence if it is the proximate cause of the injury. Young Candy & Tobacco Co. v. Montoya, 91 Ariz. 363, 368, 372 P.2d 363, 368 (1962); Gibson v. Boyle, 139 Ariz. 512, 519, 679 P.2d 535, 542 (App. 1983). "We are committed to the doctrine that if the proximate cause of an injury to another is the failure of the driver of the vehicle to comply with the positive directions of the statute relating to the operation of motor vehicles, such failure or violation is negligence per se and actionable negligence." Id.; Gray v. Woods, 84 Ariz. 87, 92-93, 324 P.2d 220, 225-26 (1958); Anderson v. Morgan, 73 Ariz. 344, 347, 241 P.2d 786, 789 (1952); City of Phoenix v. Mullen, 65 Ariz. 83, 86, 174 P.2d 422, 425 (1946). It is just as essential, however, to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that such negligence is the proximate cause of the injury as it is to prove the act of negligence itself. Anderson, 73 Ariz. at 347, 241 P.2d at 789.

The statute must be intended to protect a particular individual or class of persons from harm. Tellez v. Saban, 188 Ariz. 165, 169, 933 P.2d 1233, 1237 (App. 1996). Statutes intended for the protection of public at large rather than an individual or class of persons do not create the standard of conduct required of a reasonable person. Id., citing Restatement § 288 cmt. b. (finding no reason to allow the breach of this statute [28-477 requiring all persons who operate motor vehicles on highway to be licenses], which the legislature punishes with a fine, to create a cause of action in tort for plaintiff). Arizona courts have frequently defined "the class of persons to be protected" broadly, encompassing "all those likely to be injured by the...