A driver runs a red light, rear-ends a stopped vehicle, or changes lanes unsafely and causes a crash. If that conduct violates a New Jersey traffic law, the violation may strengthen an injury claim. In some circumstances, a proven violation establishes negligence under the legal standard known as negligence per se.
New Jersey does not treat every traffic violation as automatic proof of negligence. Most violations are evidence to consider, while a violation of a law that incorporates the ordinary duty of reasonable care can establish negligence itself. Either way, the injured person must still show that the conduct caused the crash and the injuries being claimed. The distinction can help focus a dispute over fault.
Key Takeaways: How Negligence Per Se Can Strengthen a Car Accident Claim in New Jersey
- Most New Jersey traffic violations are evidence of negligence, not negligence per se.
- A proven violation of the careless-driving law or the rule against following too closely can establish negligence.
- A citation or a rear-end collision alone does not establish negligence or liability.
- The driver’s conduct must be connected to the crash and the injuries claimed.
- New Jersey’s comparative negligence rules may reduce or bar recovery if the injured person also bears fault.
What Does Negligence Per Se Mean in a New Jersey Car Accident Claim?
In a typical negligence claim, an injured person must show that another driver failed to use reasonable care, that the failure caused the crash, and that the crash caused compensable harm. A traffic law violation can help establish whether the driver failed to meet the required standard of care.
Under New Jersey’s model civil jury charge, a statutory violation is generally evidence a jury may consider when deciding negligence. The New Jersey Supreme Court has recognized a stronger effect when a law incorporates the ordinary duty of reasonable care: a finding that the driver violated that law is a finding of negligence.
In Eaton v. Eaton, the court applied that principle to New Jersey’s careless-driving law. In Dolson v. Anastasia, it applied the principle to the rule against following another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent. In both situations, the conduct must be proven. A ticket or the fact that a collision occurred does not, by itself, settle the civil claim.
How Can a Traffic Law Violation Strengthen a Claim?
A violation is most useful when it helps explain how the collision happened. Speeding several minutes before a crash may have little bearing on fault if the driver slowed down well before impact. Excessive speed that prevented a driver from stopping in time, however, may be central to proving fault.
The same distinction applies to other conduct. Evidence that a driver followed too closely before a rear-end collision may address the cause of the crash directly. An unrelated equipment or registration violation generally would not. The question is whether the conduct that broke the rule contributed to the harm the rule was meant to prevent.
Reliable evidence of a relevant violation can also make a disputed account of the crash easier to assess. Video, witness accounts, vehicle damage, and roadway evidence may help show whether the driver’s conduct caused the collision.
What Evidence Can Help Prove a Violation?
A traffic citation may be useful, but it does not automatically establish liability in a civil case. In Eaton, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a driver’s guilty plea to a traffic offense could be considered as evidence in a related civil lawsuit. The plea was not conclusive proof, and the driver could explain or dispute the underlying facts.
Depending on the crash, useful evidence may include:
- Police reports, officer observations, and records of any citations or pleas.
- Traffic-camera footage, surveillance video, dash-camera recordings, and photographs.
- Witness statements and 911 recordings.
- Available vehicle data that may help establish speed, braking, or the timing of an impact.
- Skid marks, debris, vehicle damage, lane markings, and final vehicle positions.
Preserving evidence can matter when drivers disagree about what happened. Recordings may be erased, vehicles may be repaired, and witnesses can become harder to locate over time.
Why Doesn’t a Proven Violation Automatically Decide the Case?
Establishing negligence does not resolve every issue. The conduct must have contributed to the collision, and the injured person must connect the crash to the injuries and damages claimed.
Consider a driver with expired registration who is struck while legally stopped at a traffic signal. The registration violation does not explain the crash. By contrast, evidence that another driver entered the intersection against a red light may directly address the cause of the collision.
Injury causation may be disputed separately. An insurer might accept that its driver caused the crash but argue that a medical condition existed beforehand or was unrelated to the impact. Medical records, treatment history, and other appropriate evidence can help show how the collision affected the injured person.
How Does Comparative Negligence Affect Compensation in New Jersey?
A traffic violation by one driver does not prevent consideration of the other driver’s conduct. New Jersey uses modified comparative negligence. Under N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.1, an injured person’s damages are reduced by their percentage of negligence. Recovery is barred if their negligence is greater than that of the person, or the combined persons, against whom recovery is sought.
For example, if damages are $200,000 and the injured driver is found 20% negligent, the damages would be reduced by $40,000. If that driver is found more than 50% negligent in a case against one other driver, recovery is barred.
Evidence about both drivers matters. A claim that the other driver ran a red light may be met with an allegation that the injured driver was speeding, distracted, or otherwise contributed to the collision. Those allegations should be assessed against the evidence rather than assumed to be true.
Which Traffic Violations Can Have the Greatest Impact?
The strongest evidence usually concerns conduct closely tied to the crash. A proven failure to yield may be central to an intersection collision. Speeding may matter when stopping distance is disputed. Following too closely may explain why a driver could not stop before striking a vehicle ahead.
Careless driving and following too closely deserve particular attention because New Jersey courts have held that their reasonable-care standards can establish negligence when a violation is proven. That does not make every rear-end crash a proven following-too-closely violation or automatically assign all fault to one driver.
Running a red light, disregarding a stop sign, or making an unsafe lane movement may also provide substantial evidence of negligence, depending on the facts. The number of alleged violations matters less than whether reliable evidence shows conduct that caused the crash.
How Can an Attorney Use This Evidence?
An attorney can examine the applicable traffic rule, determine what evidence supports an alleged violation, and assess whether the conduct caused the collision. That review may also identify evidence relevant to a comparative-fault allegation or a dispute about injuries.
A case with contested facts may call for witness interviews, additional records, or accident reconstruction. When objective evidence supports the account of how a collision happened, it can help present a clearer claim to an insurer or jury.
Get Help With a New Jersey Car Accident Claim
A traffic violation can strengthen a car accident claim, and a proven violation of certain laws can establish negligence under New Jersey law. The outcome still depends on the evidence of what happened, whether that conduct caused the crash, and how the crash affected the injured person.
Brandon J. Broderick, Attorney at Law can investigate the collision, preserve relevant evidence, and evaluate disputes over fault and injuries. Contact us today.