Kimberley Hoff Oct.

6, 2012 PAR 116 Negligence Breach Assignment

The relevant statute in Colorado for the collision of a car with a stopped truck is C.R.S. 42-4-2301, which requires that all vehicles operating under a truck license carry emergency reflectors and deploy them around the vehicle whenever it is stopped for anything besides normal traffic regulation. Under this statute, the truck driver is indeed guilty of negligence per se if he was not in a municipality with street lights every 100 feet or less, if he did not turn on his flashers when he stopped, or if he had been stopped for more than 10 minutes before deploying the reflectors2. The existence of this statute makes proving Marvin's case easier in that it establishes a minimum reasonable conduct standard on the defendants side (truck drivers must carry and deploy reflectors when their vehicle is stopped) from the outset, which the jury does not have to agree upon during deliberation. However, the plaintiffs attorney will have to be able to show that the violated statute is relevant to the facts of the case, that the violation of the statute was the proximate cause of the injury, and that the harm that occurred was what the statute intended to prevent3. Marvin will also still have to prove that he was not guilty of contributory negligence under the circumstances4--for example, that he was traveling at or under the speed limitthe speed limit is likewise a statute establishing minimum reasonable conduct but it is one that may not be sufficient as a defense if conditions such as the weather would have reduced the safe driving speed--and thus had not negligently reduced his possible reaction time to the obstruction created by the stopped truck5. Marvins attorney will also have to establish that the truck driver had had sufficient time to deploy the reflectors before the accident took place, otherwise the driver had not yet violated the standard of care6. Since this is a negligence per se case, his lawyer will have to address the possible excuses for violation of a statute: incapacity of the actor, ignorance of the law, inability after reasonable diligence, emergency action, and compliance producing risk of greater harm7.

1 2

Colorado Revised Statutes 42-4-230 Emergency lighting equipment Who must carry Section 1. CRS 42-4-230-2 and -3. 3 Hidalgo v. Cochise County, 13 Ariz. App. 27 1970. 4 Restatement [Second] of Torts 328D, illust. 11. 5 CRS 42-4-104: Adoption of traffic control manual. 6 Anderson v. Hudspeth Pine, Inc., 299 F.2d 874 (10th Cir. 1962). 7 Restatement [Second] of Torts 288A[2].