O Guin V. Fernando Count (2005)

524 Words3 Pages
In order for the Plaintiff, Lind, to prevail on negligence per se, there are four elements that must be met. (1) The statute or regulation must clearly define the required standard of conduct; (2) the statute or regulation must have been intended to prevent the type of harm the defendant’s act or omission caused; (3) the plaintiff must be a member of the class of persons the statute or regulation was designed to protect; and (4) the violation must have been the proximate cause of the injury. O’Guin v. Bingham Count. 122 P.3d 308 (Idaho 2005). The key facts to this case are as follows: a boulder rolled down the hillside striking Maigret’s vehicle and spun the car around; Maigret did not react skillfully when the boulder struck; Maigret’s…show more content…
The facts of the case cite two statutes, the first provides that “no person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon the roadway” and the second that “[e]very person driving a motor vehicle shall exercise care for the safety of others at all times.” The statutes given clearly define the required standard of conduct, therefore satisfying the first element of negligence per se. The second element of negligence per se can be inferred by combining the two statutes. The first statute only describes the conduct that a person shall have, that is, not leaving a vehicle on a roadway. The second statutes that a person driving shall exercise care and safety. Thus a person operating a vehicle shall not leave the vehicle in a roadway because to prevent an unsafe (or harmful) situation, and the second element of negligence per se is met. Lastly, the second statute specifically states the objective of the statute is to provide for the “safety of others.” Lind, another user of the roadway, is clearly the audience the statute was designed to protect and therefore the third element of negligence per se is

    More about O Guin V. Fernando Count (2005)

      Open Document