Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 35 Conn. App. 126 (1994)
- Citation
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 35 Conn. App. 126 (1994)
- Parent Document
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 35 Conn. App. 126 (1994)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 1994-07-12
Other Sections in This Document (34)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 35 Conn. App. 126 (1994)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 35 Conn. App. 126 (1994)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 35 Conn. App. 126 (1994)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 35 Conn. App. 126 (1994)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 35 Conn. App. 126 (1994)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 35 Conn. App. 126 (1994)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 35 Conn. App. 126 (1994)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 35 Conn. App. 126 (1994)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 35 Conn. App. 126 (1994)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 35 Conn. App. 126 (1994)
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
- Section 47a-8
Full Text
920 charsPursuant to § 288A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a defendant can rebut an allegation of negligence per se through proof of an excuse for the violation. Section 288A provides that, unless the statute is construed not to permit an excuse, the violation of such a statute “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; [and] (e) compliance would involve a greater risk of harm to the actor or to others.” (Emphasis added.) In the case of strict liability, however, the defendant is liable without fault upon proof of the violation of the statute and proximate causation. When an excuse is not permitted under the construction of the applicable statute, strict liability exists.6