Court Opinion

ID: 9551897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:01:40.067265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:55.778879
License: Public Domain

RABINO WITZ, Justice
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
The focal point of my disagreement with the court’s decision centers upon the adoption of the negligence per se criteria of the Restatement. Given retention of the present fault premised negligence system, and the absence of comparative negligence doctrines, I think this court should have adopted the rule that violation of an applicable statute, ordinance, or regulation is evidence of negligence and not negligence per se. For in my view, an evidence of negligence rule is more easily grasped by jurors, presents fewer difficulties from the vantage point of judicial administration, and would have a less drastic impact upon the resolution of contributory negligence issues.
In the end, I suppose the choice one makes is dependent upon an evaluation of the performance of juries in negligence actions. For my part, I would continue the common law’s long tradition of placing the responsibility for determination of the standard of reasonable care with the jury.
I join in the court’s disposition of all other issues in the appeal.