Traffic Violations Can Be Good Evidence of Negligence In Civil Cases
Florida law allows evidence that one party has violated a traffic ordinance (or other law) to be used in a civil suit for damages.


July 09, 2010 /24-7PressRelease/ -- Brakes slam, tires screech and there's an accident. If it's a serious accident, the police may be called and someone may get a ticket. Perhaps it's for failure to stop at a stop sign or for excessive speed. Can that violation of the law be used as part of a civil lawsuit for damages? Generally, yes. But there are a number of factors to keep in mind.

Florida law allows evidence that one party has violated a traffic ordinance (or other law) to be used in a civil suit for damages. (Note that a civil suit is where one party sues another for monetary damages; it's different from appearing in court for a traffic violation or criminal activity, in which the government is doing the suing.) But just how a traffic violation is used in a civil suit depends on the nature of the violation. Most traffic violations can be used as evidence of negligence, but on their own they don't entirely establish that the driver was negligent. Ultimately, the jury must decide if the action was negligent.

Establishing Negligence

Two other hurdles must also be met to establish a successful suit for negligence. First, the other party must also have been the proximate cause of the accident, which is to say the primary cause of the accident in the eyes of the law.

Second, the injured person must also be in the group of people that the law in question was designed to protect. For example, let's say a pedestrian is hit by a motorcyclist who is not wearing a helmet, in a state that requires helmets. The helmet law isn't meant to protect pedestrians, so the injured pedestrian can't use that violation of the law to show that the motorcyclist was negligent. On the other hand, if the accident occurred in a park that prohibited motorized vehicles, then the pedestrian could use the violation to demonstrate that the motorcyclist was negligent, because the law was intended to protect pedestrians in the park.

In most civil cases that involve traffic accidents, the court instructs the jury that the violation of the law is evidence that the defendant was negligent, but that they should also consider all the other facts and circumstances involved to determine negligence. As you might expect, a traffic violation can be fairly compelling evidence of negligence and the party that was injured as a result often has a good chance--but not a guarantee--of prevailing in the case.

Negligence Per Se

Many types of traffic violations can be used as evidence. In some cases, the nature of a violation can even be considered negligence per se, which means that it so clearly establishes a party's negligence that the jury doesn't need to consider the issue. One example of negligence per se is when a car struck a freight train car that was parked at night at an unlit rail crossing. The driver had no opportunity to see that the road was blocked by the train until it was too late, and there was in fact a law requiring trains to have lights if they're stopped at unlit crossings. The court found that the law established that the railroad had a duty to take precautions against just the sort of accident that happened, and that failing to do so was negligence per se.

Cell Phone Use Not Covered

A wide variety of traffic violations can be used as evidence of negligence, but one that cannot be used in Florida is driving while using a cell phone (including texting or sending emails while driving), because (unlike most states) Florida has no law on the subject. Nine different bills addressing cell phone use or texting while driving were introduced in the Florida Legislature in 2010, but all of them died in committee. While there's no telling what bills may be introduced in the future, the nine failed bills all envisioned cell phone use as a non-criminal traffic violation, which would be evidence of negligence, but not negligence per se.

Even though there is no law on the books preventing cell phone use while driving, evidence that the driver who caused the collision was using a cell phone, for any purpose, will be presented to a jury as evidence of a breach of the duty to exercise reasonable care. Since use of a cell phone while driving is not a violation of the law in Florida currently , the court would not instruct the jury that use of the phone is evidence of negligence; instead, the jury would have to come to this conclusion on its own.

Similarly, if you were using the cell phone during an accident, such evidence can be used against you to establish comparative fault, in all accident cases. Negligence of the injured party can also be used by the defense. One common example is when the person responsible for the accident demonstrates that the injured person wasn't wearing a seatbelt, and that his or her injuries were more severe as a result or would not have occurred but for the failure to wear the seatbelt. The same analysis applies to anyone using a cell phone while driving.

If someone is injured in a traffic accident, the fact that the other driver was ticketed or otherwise violated a law or ordinance can be very helpful evidence in a lawsuit against the other driver for damages. But even with a "typical" traffic accident, the issues can be complex, so it's best to consult with an experienced personal injury attorney who understands how traffic violations may be introduced as evidence in a civil lawsuit.

In automobile crashes that involve a death, law enforcement is required to complete an investigation as to the cause of the crash and the death of the driver or passenger involved. Such investigation is useful for the Plaintiff's attorney as evidence in the case, but is not a replacement for securing your own expert. Such reports are admissible evidence in civil proceedings.

Further Related Resources:


Press Release Contact Information:

Findlaw PR