For a statute to apply in a negligence case, what must a plaintiff show?

In a negligence case, for a statute to apply, the plaintiff must demonstrate that they belong to a class of individuals protected by the statute, and that the purpose of the statute was to prevent the type of harm that the plaintiff experienced. This principle is rooted in the idea that statutes typically aim to protect specific groups from particular dangers, and proving this connection is crucial for establishing liability.

When a plaintiff is able to show that they are part of the intended protected class and that the harm suffered aligns with the types of harm the statute was designed to eliminate, it strengthens their negligence claim. This link suggests that the defendant's actions, in violating the statutory duty, were directly related to the harm that occurred, fulfilling a key element of proving negligence.

Other options do not align with the primary requirements for utilizing a statute in a negligence context. A focus on public knowledge of the statute is irrelevant to the determination of duty or breach in this context. Showing that compliance was impossible does not fit typical negligence analysis either, as it doesn’t demonstrate the defendant’s duty or the plaintiff’s injury. Lastly, the requirement for intentional violation does not apply because negligence is typically based on unintentional conduct, rather than intentional wrongdoing.