DeJesus v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that violation of statute was negligence per se where statute protected motorists from danger of train collision
• holding that a violation of a statute, imposing upon a railroad a duty to protect road traffic from colliding with unlighted trains blocking the highway at night at an unlighted crossing, was negligence per se
• determining that violations of traffic regulations would not result in negligence per se but rather would only constitute evidence of negligence, noting that the court “has consistently distinguished [traffic regulations] from other penal statutes and ordinances.”
• noting that strict liability statute bars contributory negligence
• \Proof of violation of a traffic ordinance is prima facie evidence only of `negligence'; proximate cause and other elements of actionable negligence must be proven independently.\
• violation of statute requiring lights on railroad cars parked near intersection created private cause of action, and was negligence per se

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).