CACI No. 420. Negligence per se: Rebuttal of the Presumption of Negligence - Violation Excused
Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2023 edition)
Download PDF
420.Negligence per se: Rebuttal of the Presumption of
Negligence - Violation Excused
A violation of a law is excused if [name of plaintiff/name of defendant]
proves that one of the following is true:
(a) The violation was reasonable because of [name of
plaintiff/defendant]’s [specify type of “incapacity”]; [or]
(b) Despite using reasonable care, [name of plaintiff/name of defendant]
was not able to obey the law; [or]
(c) [Name of plaintiff/name of defendant] faced an emergency that was
not caused by [his/her/nonbinary pronoun] own misconduct; [or]
(d) Obeying the law would have involved a greater risk of harm to
[name of plaintiff/defendant] or to others; [or]
(e) [Other reason excusing or justifying noncompliance.]
New September 2003; Revised May 2020
Directions for Use
The burden of proof shifts from the party asserting a negligence per se claim to the
party claiming an excuse for violating a law. (Baker-Smith v. Skolnick (2019) 37
Cal.App.5th 340, 347 [249 Cal.Rptr.3d 514].) Factor (b), regarding an attempt to
comply with the applicable statute or regulation, should not be given if the evidence
does not show such an attempt. (Atkins v. Bisigier (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 414, 423
[94 Cal.Rptr. 49].) Factor (b) should be used only in special cases because it relies
on the concept of due care to avoid a charge of negligence per se. (Casey v. Russell
(1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 379, 385 [188 Cal.Rptr. 18].)
Sources and Authority
• Rebuttal of Presumption of Negligence per se. Evidence Code section 669(b)(1).
• “In our opinion the correct test is whether the person who has violated a statute
has sustained the burden of showing that he did what might reasonably be
expected of a person of ordinary prudence, acting under similar circumstances,
who desired to comply with the law.” (Alarid v. Vanier (1958) 50 Cal.2d 617,
624 [327 P.2d 897].)
• “[T]he presumption of negligence codified in Evidence Code section 669,
subdivision (a), may be rebutted by proof that ‘[t]he person violating the statute,
ordinance, or regulation did what might reasonably be expected of a person of
ordinary prudence, acting under similar circumstances, who desired to comply
with the law.’ ” (Taulbee v. EJ Distribution Corp. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 590,
597 [247 Cal.Rptr.3d 538].)
267
• “An excuse instruction is improper unless special circumstances exist.” (Baker-
Smith, supra, 37 Cal.App.5th at p. 345.)
• “The Restatement Second of Torts illustrates the types of situations which may
justify or excuse a violation of the statute: [¶] ‘(a) [T]he violation is reasonable
because of the actor’s incapacity [e.g., a small child runs into the street without
looking, in violation of statute requiring pedestrians to look both ways before
crossing]; [¶] ‘(b) [H]e neither knows nor should know of the occasion for
compliance; [¶] ‘(c) [H]e is unable after reasonable diligence or care to comply
[e.g., a statute provides that railroads must keep fences clear of snow. A heavy
blizzard covers the fences with snow and, acting promptly and reasonably, the
railroad company is unable to remove all the snow for 3 days. Someone crosses
the fence on the snow mound and is injured. The violation of the statute is
excused]; [¶] ‘(d) [H]e is confronted by an emergency not due to his own
misconduct [e.g., swerving into left lane to avoid child suddenly darting into the
road]; [¶] ‘(e) [C]ompliance would involve a greater risk of harm to the actor or
to others.’ Thus, in emergencies or because of some unusual circumstances, it
may be difficult or impossible to comply with the statute, and the violation may
be excused.” (Casey, supra, 138 Cal.App.3d at p. 384, internal citations omitted.)
• “To determine whether excuse could be a defense in a negligence per se case,
California law weighs the benefits and burdens of accident precautions.” (Baker-
Smith, supra, 37 Cal.App.5th at p. 345.)
Secondary Sources
6 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Torts, §§ 1002-1028
California Tort Guide (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed.) §§ 1.28-1.31
1 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 3, Proof of Negligence, § 3.13 (Matthew Bender)
33 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 380, Negligence (Matthew
Bender)
16 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 165, Negligence, § 165.81 (Matthew
Bender)
CACI No. 420 NEGLIGENCE
268
© Judicial Council of California.
