Opinion ID: 1185665
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Effect of the Violation of a Traffic Regulation.

Text: Appellants objected to the trial court's giving Instruction No. 10, which stated: You are instructed that the law of the State of Alaska as it applies to this case is as follows: `88. Drive on Right Side of Roadway  Exceptions. (a) Upon all roadways of sufficient width a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows: 1. When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing such movement; 2. When the right half of the roadway is closed to traffic while under construction or repair; 3. Upon a roadway designated and signposted for one way traffic. (b) Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking or passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.' (Alaska Administrative Code, Title 13, Section 88, Now Title 13, Section 104.31.) `126. Basic Rule and Maximum Limits. (a) No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. In every event speed shall be so controlled as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care.       (d) The driver of every vehicle shall, consistent with the requirements of paragraph (a) drive at an appropriate reduced speed when approaching and crossing an intersection or railway grade crossing, when approaching a hill crest, when travelling upon any narrow or winding roadway, and when special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions.' (Alaska Administrative Code, Title 13, Section 126.) `Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic the following herewith shall apply: (a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from said lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety.' (Alaska Administrative Code, Title 13, Section 96.) If you find from a preponderance of the evidence that any defendant violated any of the provisions of the law just read to you and that any such violation proximately caused the accident in question, you are instructed that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case that defendant was negligent. This prima facie case of negligence is not conclusive. It may be overcome by other evidence showing that under all the circumstances surrounding the event in question defendant's conduct was excusable or justifiable. To show that a violation of law was excusable or justifiable, so as to overcome this prima facie case of negligence, in the event you find that a defendant violated any of the foregoing provisions of law, the defendant must convince you, the jury, that any such violation of law resulted from causes or things beyond the control of the defendant and that he was not negligent. The fact that a person skidded and lost control of the vehicle, if this be a fact, is not, standing alone, such excuse or justification. The burden would be on such person to convince you that no negligent act or omission caused the skid. If, in accordance with these instructions, you find that a defendant has violated the law and that any such violation proximately caused the accident in question, and you further find that defendant has failed to so excuse or justify such violation of law, then you must find that the defendant was negligent. The source of this instruction was Rogers v. Dubiel, 373 P.2d 295 (Alaska 1962). This case has caused much confusion. The divergent interpretations accorded it are mirrored in the different readings by the attorneys in this case. Appellants view Rogers as a case of res ipsa loquitur. Appellees view it as setting forth the consequences for the violation of a traffic regulation. We take this opportunity to further explain the rule. Rogers v. Dubiel must be viewed as prescribing the consequences in a negligence action of the violation of a traffic law. The facts of that case indicate that defendant's automobile skidded out of its lane and struck the plaintiff, who was standing on the right side of the roadway. The unsafe movement of a vehicle from its proper lane of travel was a violation of Title 13, Alaska Administrative Code, § 96 (§ 2-309 of the Traffic Regulations, 1958), which read substantially the same as set out in Instruction 10, supra. Rogers held that The law required the defendant to operate his vehicle as nearly as practicable entirely within the lane of traffic along which he was proceeding, and that he not depart that lane until he had ascertained that he could do so with safety. This he failed to do. 373 P.2d at 296. The law was clearly one which, in the court's view, established a reasonable behavioral standard. Moreover, the facts of the case indicate with equal clarity that the law was designed at least in part to protect bystanders from personal injury caused by cars leaving their driving lanes in an unsafe manner. Thus it was correctly applied in that case. Because of the peculiar nature of that accident, the defendant was in a much better position to explain his actions than was the plaintiff, whose back was turned to the defendant's car. As the opinion stated: It is true that counsel for plaintiff might have questioned defendant concerning these aspects when he had defendant on the stand as an adverse witness. However, under the general view that we take, it was not necessary that he do so. Plaintiff had established a prima facie case when he showed that he was standing on the shoulder of the street in a location where he had a legal right to be and was injured by the departure of defendant's vehicle from the lane of traffic it was required to use. Thereafter the burden was on defendant to convince the trier of the facts that he was not negligent.          The fact that defendant failed to mention in his testimony anything that could be classified as an affirmative act of negligence is not sufficient to relieve him from responsibility. The controlling fact is that his automobile skidded out of his control and into a portion of the roadway that it was not permitted to enter except with safety. 373 P.2d at 297-298. (Footnote omitted. Emphasis supplied.) It is noteworthy that the last-quoted sentence is a direct paraphrase of the traffic regulation violated by the defendant. It is, therefore, clear that the controlling fact in Rogers v. Dubiel was that the defendant had violated the traffic regulation. Once the plaintiff established this fact, the burden shifted to the defendant to excuse or justify his violation. Since he failed to do so, the trial court was held to have erred in finding that the plaintiff had not proven his case. [3] For that reason, this court reversed the judgment. The opinion in Rogers discusses at length the fact that the plaintiff could not show how defendant was negligent as easily as defendant could show why he was not. However, such discussion was doubtless inserted to explain why the new rule promulgated in Rogers was a fair one. It is certainly fairer to require one who violates the law to excuse or justify his actions than to require an innocent bystander to show why there was no excuse or justification. Moreover, in many cases, such as Rogers, the defendant will be more easily able to explain his action  or inaction  than can the plaintiff. In any event, the controlling fact of the case was the regulatory violation. The case cited as directly supporting the court's decision in Rogers was Bergstrom v. Ove, 39 Wash.2d 78, 234 P.2d 548 (1951). In that case, as in Rogers, the defendant skidded onto the shoulder of the road and injured the plaintiff who was standing there. Driving a vehicle with one or more wheels off the road, unless excused, was a violation of a Washington state statute. [4] The court held, The reason why skidding in such cases establishes a prima facie case of negligence is because it has resulted in a violation of the law of the road, which requires an excuse. 234 P.2d at 552. (Italics in original.) Bergstrom was in turn based on a third case, Martin v. Bear, 167 Wash. 327, 9 P.2d 365 (1932). In that case the defendant's automobile crossed the center line and caused an accident. Such an unexcused departure from the assigned lane was a violation of a statute and therefore held to be negligence per se. If a car while driven on the wrong side of the highway collide with another car, the burden is upon the driver upon the wrong side of the highway to justify his violation of the law of the road. Berry on Automobiles (2d Ed.) § 171, p. 206.       The law of the road, however, required respondents' automobile to keep to the right of the center of the highway. The presence of that automobile on the wrong side of the highway caused an injury and created liability unless excusable or justifiable. While respondents were excusable if, without fault on their part, their automobile skidded across the center line of the highway, the burden of proving excuse or justification was upon them. 9 P.2d at 365, 366. [5] Thus from an examination of the precedential bases of Rogers v. Dubiel emerge two rules: 1) A violation of a statewide administrative traffic regulation adopted pursuant to statutory authority [6] must be equated with a violation of a traffic statute itself. 2) The violation of either an applicable traffic statute or regulation which has been adopted by the court as a standard of reasonable behavior is negligence per se. Rogers v. Dubiel and its Washington precedents form the backbone of our Alaska rule. While other Alaska cases amplify the basic principle of Rogers, that case remains the originative case in this state. However, an examination of the other Alaska cases on the subject will further elucidate the Rogers doctrine. In the first place it is clear that recent Alaska cases have also viewed Rogers v. Dubiel as a case prescribing the tort consequences for a traffic violation. Mallonee v. Finch, 413 P.2d 159, 162 n. 11 (Alaska 1966); [7] Maddocks v. Bennett, 456 P.2d 453, 460 (Alaska 1969); Bertram v. Harris, 423 P.2d 909, 915 (Alaska 1967). [8] Quite separate and distinct are those cases dealing with the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The latter doctrine is utilized only in cases with incomplete factual descriptions. Evans v. Buchner, 386 P.2d 836, 837 (Alaska 1963). In Crawford v. Rogers, 406 P.2d 189, 193 (Alaska 1965), we said: Res ipsa loquitur means `the thing speaks for itself.' As a rule of law in an action involving an accident where a claim of negligence is made, it permits a jury, on the basis of experience or common knowledge, to infer negligence from the mere occurrence of the accident itself. The jury is permitted to conclude that such an accident would not ordinarily occur unless someone had been negligent. As the Hawaii Supreme Court said in Guanzon v. Kalamau, 48 Haw. 330, 402 P.2d 289, 291 (1965), The doctrine, where applicable, is a procedural device which operates to shift the burden of going forward with the evidence to the defendant without relieving plaintiff of the burden of proof. It relieves the plaintiff from showing any particular acts of negligence and places on the defendant the burden of explaining that the accident did not occur from want of care on his part. 61 C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 511(3) b, p. 205. [9] On the other hand, traffic laws, including statutes, regulations, and local ordinances, serve two purposes in this state. First, they provide criminal penalties, often minor, for their violation. Second, they set the standard of a reasonable man and thereby require a finding of negligence in a tort action if the plaintiff can prove that the defendant committed an unexcused violation. In terms of elementary tort principles, traffic laws prescribe the legal duty or standard of care owed by the driver to the general public who may be injured if such standard is not met. By the same token, a violation of a statute, regulation, or ordinance is a breach of that duty and, unless excused, results in a prima facie showing that the defendant did not act towards the plaintiff as would a reasonably prudent driver. [10] Of course, issues involving the elements of 1) duty or 2) breach of that duty are traditionally considered to be separate and distinct from the issues of 3) whether the defendant committed any act or omission at all, 4) whether such act or omission was the actual cause of the injury, or 5) whether it was the proximate cause thereof. Thus, while res ipsa loquitur procedurally assists the plaintiff in his proof in certain incomplete factual settings, the violation-of-statute doctrine assists him to establish a firm duty to impose upon the defendant. [11] In Maddocks v. Bennett, 456 P.2d 453, 460 (Alaska 1969), we said: Even less applicable to the present case than res ipsa loquitur is appellee's analogy to violation-of-statute cases, e.g., Rogers v. Dubiel, 373 P.2d 295 (Alaska 1962). These cases are only concerned with the negligence of the act and not with causation in fact.    Violation of statute cases really have nothing to do with causation    [A] violation of a statute only determines if the actor's conduct is negligent. A reasonable man is presumed to be a lawful one. Whether the unlawful and hence negligent actions cause the damage is a separate inquiry. [12] In Meyst v. East Fifth Avenue Service, Inc., 401 P.2d 430, 435-436 (Alaska 1965), this court affirmed the use of discretion of the trial court in giving two instructions permitting, but not requiring, the jury to find that the violation of an ordinance was evidence of negligence. [13] We express no opinion as to the merits of the trial court's decision in that case in refusing to permit those particular ordinances to provide standards of reasonable behavior. Nor do we say that we would affirm that decision were it directly before us today. However, we do not and reaffirm what this court did in that case when it drew no distinction between the violation of a statute and the violation of an ordinance. It is clear that the violation of either is of equal effect in civil actions in this state. We also note with approval that the effect of the holding in Meyst was to give the trial court a certain amount of discretion in determining whether the applicable traffic law establishes a standard of reasonable behavior. Although, as discussed at greater length below, this court strongly presumes that most traffic regulations do in fact provide standards of reasonable behavior, it is conceivable that in highly unusual cases certain traffic laws may be so obscure, oblique or irrational that they could not be said as a matter of law to provide such a standard. In the event the courts of this state are faced with such arbitrary and unreasonable laws, they may provide that violations thereof merely indicate some evidence of negligence or no evidence at all. But it should be emphasized that we do not intend to signify a wholesale frontal assault on our wise and comprehensive traffic laws. [14] An earlier Alaska case, Rogge v. Weaver, 368 P.2d 810 (Alaska 1962), concerned another collision on the Richardson Highway between two trucks that met head on. The facts of the accident were somewhat similar to those in the case at bar. The plaintiff produced evidence that his truck was on the extreme right-hand side of the highway, well within his lane. He also produced evidence that the highway was sufficiently wide for the two trucks to meet and pass safely. The defendants failed to present any evidence at all. The trial court, sitting without a jury, dismissed the case. We held: At the close of plaintiff's case he had established prima facie that his vehicle was not at fault and had raised the presumption that the collision would not have occurred but for the fact that defendants' vehicle was being operated across the center line of the highway in violation of territorial law and highway regulations.    The presumption was that the collision couldn't have happened unless defendants' vehicle had been operating across the center line of the highway. This would have been a violation of law requiring adequate explanation to be excused. 368 P.2d at 816. This court went on to hold that the defendants' motion to dismiss should have been denied. Defendants should have been given an opportunity to present evidence rebutting the presumption of negligence arising from their violation of the law. If the defendants then failed to present any evidence to excuse the violation, the plaintiff would be entitled to judgment in his favor on the basis of the presumption above. By so holding, this court clearly foreshadowed its later decision in Rogers that a violation of a traffic law was negligence per se. Even more important, the court indicated one major difference between negligence per se and mere evidence of negligence. Assuming causation is shown, if a plaintiff proves that a defendant violated a traffic law prescribing a standard of reasonable behavior, and the defendant produces nothing to the contrary, plaintiff's case is then sufficiently strong to warrant a judgment in his favor. 368 P.2d at 816. However, if the law is not held to establish a standard of reasonable behavior and its violation is further held merely to constitute evidence of negligence which may, but need not, be considered determinative by the trier of fact, the judge need not render a verdict for the plaintiff. In the recent case of State v. Phillips, 470 P.2d 266, 269 (Alaska 1970), this court excused a statutory violation of the regulation cited in Instruction 10, supra, as Alaska Administrative Code, Title 13, Section 96. Plaintiff's decedent's automobile skidded out of its lane and across the highway, thereby violating the above regulation, causing the accident and ultimately her death. Alleging that a rut in the road was the direct cause of the skid, the plaintiff, administrator of decedent's estate, sued the State of Alaska, the road being a state highway. Affirming the finding of the trial court that the state was negligent, we said: Viewed in isolation, the departure of decedent's vehicle from its lane of traffic constituted evidence of contributory negligence under Rogers v. Dubiel, so rendered inappropriate reliance on any presumption of due care. In the case at bar, however, there is ample evidence that antecedent negligence on the part of the State of Alaska caused Patricia Phillips' vehicle to leave its assigned lane of traffic. This same antecedent negligence, combined with the then icy condition of the Seward Highway, furnished substantial evidence of excuse for decedent's violation of applicable highway regulations, overcoming the inference of contributory negligence from violation of highway regulations. 470 P.2d at 269 (footnote omitted). Although the court in that case set forth no general rule on the subject, the holding clearly indicates that certain violations may be excused. One such excuse can be that the violation was caused by outside forces, either man-made or natural, over which the actor had no control. [15] From this discussion of Alaska precedents, viewed in both their historic and analytical contexts, there emerges a quilt-like pattern of the law in this state on this subject up to the present. But as yet there has been no comprehensive opinion setting forth the civil consequences of the violation of a traffic statute, regulation, or ordinance. We take this opportunity to do so. However, before setting forth the general rule to be followed in the future, we pause a moment to examine the theoretical underpinnings of the doctrine of statute-based negligence and to compare the differing views of the various jurisdictions. In promulgating traffic laws and regulations the legislature, sometimes expressly, but more often by implication, indicates a policy that a certain class of individual be protected from a certain type of harm. For example, in the case at bar the regulation requiring drivers to remain within their lanes was at least partly designed to protect oncoming motorists against head-on collisions. By enacting the regulation pursuant to statutory authority, the Department of Public Safety has implicitly indicated that no reasonable person would move from his lane before ascertaining it could be done safely. Therefore, before a plaintiff is entitled to an instruction defining the violation as negligence per se, he must first demonstrate that he is among the protected class and, second, that the injury was caused by a harm against which the law was designed to protect. Other jurisdictions vary considerably in the effect given to the breach of a traffic law. [16] The majority hold that it is negligence per se. However, a substantial minority hold that it is merely evidence of negligence, which may or may not be considered. [17] In the latter jurisdictions it is argued that it amounts to judicial legislation for the courts to impose such potentially burdensome civil liabilities, unless the legislature has specifically permitted them to do so. It is also argued that the courts are unfair in strictly applying the doctrine and holding that no reasonable man would violate ill conceived, or hastily drawn or obsolete statutes. 2 F. Harper and F. James, The Law of Torts § 17.6 at 999 (1956). Virtually no jurisdiction excludes such a violation from considertion altogether, if the statute is relevant. Statutes, regulations, and ordinances comprising the rules of the road represent the fundamental guidelines by which society transports people and things in an orderly manner from place to place. To abrogate these rules would not only lead to legal chaos, it would drastically impair the functioning of our necessarily mobile society and economy. Courts universally notice this fact, but vary considerably in the strictness to which they hold that a statutory violation is negligence in itself. Once a violation has been proved, the defendant can offer any one of several defenses. For example, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff will be such a defense. Bertram v. Harris, supra 423 P.2d at 914; W. Prosser, Handbook of the Law of Torts § 35 at pages 202, 435 (3d ed. 1964). Certain valid excuses may also constitute adequate defenses. Some jurisdictions are much narrower than others in the types of excuses they will permit the defendant to prove to justify his violation of the law. Views range all the way from a strict holding that impossibility is no excuse, [18] through the view permitting admission of evidence that the violation was excusable, [19] through the admission of evidence of excuse or evidence of due care to comply with the statute, [20] to the view which follows the emerging doctrine of justifiable violation and permits additional justifications. [21] However, the fact remains that unless the defendant offers evidence of some defense, judgment for the plaintiff will be required in those jurisdictions in which a violation is negligence in itself. Critics argue that by making excuses admissible by judicial fiat absent express legislative consent, the courts engage in additional judicial law-making. Indeed this is so. But the courts cannote operate in a vacuum. There must be standards to guide them. The need for a rule of law persists even though the legislature may not have spoken on the subject. The need for a societal-governing norm in this field is clear. Traffic rules have always been violated and injuries sustained as a result. This practice will undoubtedly continue whether or not civil liabilities are imposed. But people must be able to govern their affairs according to known standards. They must be able to protect themselves in advance, currently by purchasing defensive insurance, perhaps in the future by some other means. They must also be able to take steps to make themselves whole once again after sustaining injuries and property damage. Since the courts must settle such disputes, to the judiciary falls the task of establishing guidelines in the absence of an express legislative mandate. To call this judicial legislation does not solve the problem. When confronted with an important legal question, with no direct guidance in positive or decisional law, the courts must exercise a creative role. We must set up these rules as best we can, respectfully leaving it to the legislature to correct by positive legislation what it may consider our errors. Clarity, certainty, and justice are the goals we seek. It is certainly fair to require all drivers, who must be tested on these traffic laws and regulations before they may obtain driver's licenses, to know and obey the rules of the road. In few areas is the ancient presumption of universal legal knowledge more fairly applied. It is both just and accurate to presume that all reasonable drivers know and obey the law, and to hold them civilly as well as criminally responsible for any unexcused violations thereof. Confusion has reigned too long in this state about the consequences of a violation of a rule of the road. Because each previous opinion of this court has dealt only with certain aspects of the violation of traffic laws, many issues concerning the effect of a violation have remained unresolved. This in turn has created situations in which counsel for either plaintiffs or defendants, relying on a claimed confusion in the case law, have been motivated to litigate fully numerous cases which might otherwise have been settled. Accident litigation represents a large portion of the caseload of the court system. Uncertainty in this area, therefore, places a needlessly heavy burden on the judicial machinery which could be relieved by any exposition which would clarify the standards and rules to be applied. The time has come to articulate a comprehensive statement in this area. This is the fairest course of action for all concerned. As Mr. Justice Holmes wrote in The Common Law 110-11 (1881): Again any legal standard must, in theory, be one which would apply to all men, not specially excepted, under the same circumstances. It is not intended that the public force should fall upon an individual accidentally, or at the whim of any body of men. The standard, that is, must be fixed. The rules we adopt to be applied in this state in trials held after the date of this opinion are those set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 286, 288A, and 288B (1965). Trial courts should apply these rules whether the actor is alleged to have violated a traffic statute, regulation, or ordinance. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 286 (1965) provides: The court may adopt as the standard of conduct of a reasonable man the requirements of a legislative enactment or an administrative regulation whose purpose is found to be exclusively or in part (a) to protect a class of persons which includes the one whose interest is invaded, and (b) to protect the particular interest which is invaded, and (c) to protect that interest against the kind of harm which has resulted, and (d) to protect that interest against the particular hazard from which the harm results. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 288A (1965) provides: (1) An excused violation of a legislative enactment or an administrative regulation is not negligence. (2) Unless the enactment or regulation is construed not to permit such excuse, its violation is excused when (a) the violation is reasonable because of the actor's incapacity; (b) he neither knows nor should know of the occasion for compliance; (c) he is unable after reasonable diligence or care to comply; (d) he is confronted by an emergency not due to his own misconduct; (e) compliance would involve a greater risk of harm to the actor or to others. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 288B (1965) provides: (1) The unexcused violation of a legislative enactment or an administrative regulation which is adopted by the court as defining the standard of conduct of a reasonable man, is negligence in itself. (2) The unexcused violation of an enactment or regulation which is not so adopted may be relevant evidence bearing on the issue of negligent conduct. These rules are equitable. They are already widely followed. The previous Alaska cases, rightly construed, are all consistent with these rules. Wide changes in personal injury liability should not occur as a result of the adoption of these rules. In our opinion these rules will greatly promote stability in the law, and will simplify and expedite the many personal injury cases in our trial courts. These rules provide that the law allegedly violated must be applicable to the situation. If the law is adopted by the court as providing a fair and just standard of reasonable behavior and the violation is not excused, the violation will be negligence per se. [22] Finally, by adopting these rules we provide a basic method of determining extenuating circumstances which will excuse the violation. We note that the list is not rigid. Comment a to Section 288A of the Restatement, supra, states: The list of situations in which a violation may be excused is not intended to be exclusive. There may be other excuses. The rule will cover most situations. Other extenuating circumstances will have to depend upon the facts of each case. The fear that obscure or antiquated laws may be utilized to trap the unwary should prove groundless under the above rules. In the first place the court will be free under § 286, supra, to refuse to adopt such a law as the standard of a reasonable man. [23] However, we wish to caution both bench and bar that we believe most traffic laws in this state do in fact represent reasonable behavioral standards. We do not intend that the inclusion of Section 288B(2) as part of the adopted rules signals a wholesale assault upon our traffic laws. The purpose of our adoption of that subsection is to provide an alternative in the rare instance in which, for one reason or another, the violated law cannot fairly be said to require reasonable behavior. [24] Needless to say, in our review of such challenged laws we shall cast a strong presumption in favor of the legislative enactment or regulation. We expect the trial courts of this state to do the same. However, in the unlikely event the court does not adopt the statutory command as the standard of reasonable behavior, it may either permit the violation to be introduced as evidence relevant to the negligence issue  or it may exclude it altogether. [25] Additionally, if the court holds that the statute sets forth the standard of reasonable behavior and admits evidence of its violation, the court still may, in appropriate cases, permit the defendant to introduce evidence that although he did in fact violate the law, its meaning was so obscure or unreasonable that he acted with all due care in attempting to obey it. In this case his violation could be excused under § 288A(2) (c) of the Restatement, supra. [26] As the court stated in Evers v. Davis, 86 N.J.L. 196, 90 A. 677, 681 (1914): Thus a defendant, although he cannot be heard to say that it was not his duty to obey the statute, may show what he did in his effort to obey it, leaving it to the jury to say whether such effort was what a reasonably prudent person would have done in view of the statute. We do not foresee such a defense making much headway when the typical traffic law is violated. The general rule, to be applied in the vast majority of cases, remains that all men are presumed to know the law. [27] And if a reasonably prudent man would take precautions in addition to those statutorily required, the court may, of course, find defendant negligent for failing to do so. [28] Applying the above rules to the facts of this case, we hold that giving Instruction No. 10 to the jury was not error. The instruction was worded to apply to any defendant in the case. Therefore, the jury could have applied it against either Mrs. Ferrell or Mr. Graves. It was worded to apply on behalf of any plaintiff. Therefore, the jury could have applied it on behalf of the Baxters, the Ferrells or Sea-Land, Inc. Sections 88, 126 and 96 of Title 13 of the Alaska Administrative Code were designed to protect the motoring public against personal and property damage and non-driving vehicle owners against property damage from collisions caused by violations of these regulations. The plaintiffs were thus protected under the law. The requirements of Restatement § 286 were met. The court was not in error in adopting these regulations as standards of reasonable behavior under Restatement § 288B. They formed part of the knowledge all drivers in this state must possess to obtain driver's licenses. Moreover, they merely codify some of the most basic and commonsense rules of the road  the duty to keep to the right side of the road and to maintain a speed no greater than that which is safe having due regard for all the driving conditions at the time and place. To require adherence to these rules of the road was most reasonable. The regulations were doubtless followed by the average reasonably prudent driver that day on the Richardson Highway. The Ferrells claim that the burden should not be on them to show excuse, but rather on the other parties to show there was no excuse. Such a stance is neither logical nor the law of this state. It is far easier for a defendant to demonstrate actively that his violation should be excused than for the plaintiff to demonstrate that it was not. Moreover, under Rogers v. Dubiel, supra , and its progeny it is clear that the burden is on the defendant to prove affirmatively that his violation was excused. The fact of the skidding alone is insufficient to relieve defendant from responsibility. To be absolved he must demonstrate that his violation is excusable. It is fair to put the burden of proving excuse upon the one who has violated the law in the first place. The facts of this case indicate that either one vehicle or the other must have been over the center line. The highway was indisputably wide enough for both vehicles to pass safely. Graves and Sea-Land presented evidence sufficient for a jury of reasonable men to find that the truck was not over the center of the roadway, but that Mrs. Ferrell was, and that this violation of the law was the actual and proximate cause of the accident. Viewed in this light most favorable to appellees, the evidence was sufficient to permit a judge to give Instruction No. 10. The instruction was proper because no party had introduced evidence of an excuse that was not covered in the instruction. No defense of incapacity was raised; nor was evidence presented indicating that either driver was rightfully ignorant of conditions requiring obedience of the law. Nor was there any showing that compliance with the rules of the road would entail greater danger than their violation. Evidence of skidding was introduced. However, this excuse which reasonable men could have viewed as resulting in an inability to comply with the regulations after exercising due care, was adequately covered in the instruction. Finally, as discussed at greater length in part 3 of this opinion, infra, a sudden emergency instruction was not required in view of the other instructions that were given. Appellants also allege that it was error to give that portion of Instruction 10 setting forth Section 126 of Title 13 of the Alaska Administrative Code, the basic speed law. The grounds for the appellants' claimed error is that there was no evidence upon which the jury could have found Mrs. Ferrell violated this law. We disagree. The jury could have found the accident was caused by Mrs. Ferrell's excessive speed. This prevented her from stopping short of the point of collision. Sufficient evidence was offered to convince reasonable men that Mrs. Ferrell's realization of her excessive speed and the imminent collision caused her to panic and apply her brakes too hard. This over-application of the brakes in turn may well have thrown her car into the final skid. The mere fact that neither Mrs. Ferrell nor her passengers believed she was going too fast, while it would tend to rebut such an inference, would not preclude a jury from reaching the conclusion that she was in fact speeding. It is especially noteworthy that Mr. Graves testified directly that Mrs. Ferrell's automobile looked like it was a little too fast for the corner and being in the middle of the road like that. Clearly, such testimony alone was sufficient to support the giving of an instruction on the basic speed law. Leavitt v. Gillaspie, 443 P.2d 61, 64 (Alaska 1968); Groseth v. Ness, 421 P.2d 624, 629 n. 14 (Alaska 1966); Civ.R. 51(b). It is clear that Instruction No. 10 was properly given.