Traffic violations can significantly impact a car accident case, often serving as per se evidence of negligence when determining liability. This legal principle means that if a driver is found to have violated a traffic law, such as running a red light, speeding, or failing to yield, the violation itself may create a presumption of negligence. Courts generally view traffic law violations as a failure to exercise reasonable care, which is a fundamental standard in negligence claims.
However, while a traffic violation can strengthen a claim against the at-fault driver, it does not automatically establish liability. The opposing party may argue that the violation was not the direct cause of the accident or that other factors contributed to the crash. Additionally, in some cases, comparative negligence rules may apply, potentially reducing compensation if the injured party also contributed to the accident.
It is also important to recognize that strict liability principles , which hold a party responsible regardless of fault, may sometimes apply in accident cases, particularly in commercial vehicle accidents or cases involving defective vehicles. This could alter the legal significance of a traffic violation in determining liability. In California, traffic violations often serve as strong evidence of negligence, but liability is not automatic. Courts consider comparative fault, and defendants may argue mitigating factors.
Under california evidence code § 669, a driver is presumed negligent if: (1) they violated a statue, ordinance, or regulation, (2) the violation proximately caused injury or damage, (3) the injured party was part of the class of people the law was designed to protect, and (4) the harm suffered was the type the law was meant to prevent. For example, if a driver runs a red light and crashes into another vehicle, that violation serves as strong evidence of negligence. However, while a traffic violation can strengthen a claim against the at-fault driver, it does not automatically establish liability. The opposing party may argue that the violation was not the direct cause of the accident or that other factors contributed to the crash.
