P was walking on a roadway facing away from the traffic because the sidewalk was not safe due to snow.
P was hit by D's car. P sued D in negligence.
D argued that P's conduct constituted contributory negligence since it was a violation of a statute to walk on the road.
Procedural History:
Trial court found for P.
Appellate court reversed, remanded.
MI Supreme Court reversed, found for P.
Issues:
How should a court treat a violation of a statute in a negligence case?
Holding/Rule:
A court can treat a violation of a statute in a negligence case in three possible ways…
Violation of a statute automatically creates negligence per se.
Violation of the statute is only evidence of negligence, so a jury decides if the person violation the statute falls below the acceptable standard of care.
Violation of the statute is a rebuttable presumption of negligence which can only be overcome by positive and unequivocal evidence of reasonable excuse or justification. (used by this court)
Reasoning:
The court should decide if the statute applies first.
Then, it is the job of the court to see if there is an adequate excuse.
Slapping negligence per se on every violation of statute creates a sort of strict liability.
