• Archives

  • Blog Stats

    • 667,704 hits
  • Categories

Presumption of failure to exercise due care under California Evidence Code Section 669

The presumption of failure to exercise due care under California Evidence Code Section 669 is the topic of this blog post.  The law in California presumes that someone who violates a particular provision of a statute such as the California Vehicle Code is presumed to have failed to exercise due care. This is also known as the doctrine of negligence per se.  However it is possible to rebut the presumption.

California Evidence Code § 669 states in pertinent part that, “(a) The failure of a person to exercise due care is presumed if: (1) He violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation of a public entity; (2) The violation proximately caused death or injury to person or property; (3) The death or injury resulted from an occurrence of the nature which the statute, ordinance, or regulation was designed to prevent; and (4) The person suffering the death or the injury to his person or property was one of the class of persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance, or regulation was adopted.”

“Essentially, application of the doctrine of negligence per se means that the court has adopted the conduct prescribed by the statute as the standard of care for a reasonable person in the circumstances. In such a case, a violation of the statute is presumed to be negligence.”  Alcala v. Vazmar Corp. (2008) 67 Cal.App. 4th 747, 755. (internal citations and quotations omitted.)

And Civil Code § 1714(a) states in pertinent part that, “Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person.”

Attorneys or parties in the State of California who would like to view a portion of a sample arbitration brief for a California personal injury case which utilizes the presumption discussed in this blog post sold by the author can see below.

 

Attorneys or parties in California that would like more information on a super litigation document package including a sample arbitration brief for a California personal injury case which utilizes the presumption discussed in this blog post and over 200 other sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation selling for only $299.99 can use the link shown below.

Super litigation document package

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995. Visit the author’s website at: http://www.legaldocspro.com

If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author’s weekly California legal newsletter by visiting the following link: http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm

Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

These materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

Advertisements

What is your opinion?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: