Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 235 Conn. 360 (1995)

Citation: Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 235 Conn. 360 (1995)
Parent Document: Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 235 Conn. 360 (1995)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 1995-10-10
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7896280/gore-v-peoples-savings-bank/ ↗

Full Text

1,485 chars

In cases involving the doctrine of negligence per se, however, the defendant ordinarily may avoid liability upon proof of a valid excuse or justification. 2 Restatement (Second), Torts § 288A (1965);16 see also *377Sanderson v. Steve Snyder Enterprises, Inc., 196 Conn. 134, 150, 491 A.2d 389 (1985). In particular, even if a defendant has contravened a statute the violation of which constitutes negligence per se, that defendant usually may avoid liability by showing that “he neither knows nor should know of the occasion for compliance.” 2 Restatement (Second), Torts § 288A. The commentary to the Restatement explains that “[w]here the actor neither knows nor should know of any occasion or necessity for action in compliance with the legislation or regulation, his violation of it will ordinarily be excused.” Id., comment (f). The Restatement provides the following example: “A statute provides that no vehicle shall be driven on the public highway at night without front and rear lights. While A is driving on the highway at night his rear light goes out because of the failure of an electric bulb. A has used all reasonable diligence and care in the inspection of his car, and is unaware that the light has gone out. Before he has had any reasonable opportunity to discover it, the absence of the light causes a collision with B’s car, approaching from the rear, in which B is injured. A is not liable to B on the basis of the violation of the statute.” Id., illustration (3).

Other Sections in This Document (94)

Full Text