Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1980–1999 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bortz v. Rammelgreen2 sentences1999The court, quoting Re *235 statement, Torts 2d, § 874A at 65 (Tentative Draft No. 23, Apr. 1977), stated: When a legislative provision proscribes or requires certain conduct for the benefit of a class of persons but does not provide a civil remedy for the violation, the court may, if it determines that the remedy is appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the legislation and needed to assure the effectiveness of the provision, accord to an injured member of the class a right of action, using a suitable existing tort action or a new cause of action analogous to an existing tort action. [Id 1995Super. 312, 321 , 376 A. 2d 1261 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 75 N.J. 539 , 384 A. 2d 518 (1977), Judge Pressler cited the "multi-faceted test" governing the right to a civil remedy contained in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 874A at 65 (Tentative Draft No. 23, April 1977), which stated: When a legislative provision proscribes or requires certain conduct for the benefit of a class of persons but does not provide a civil remedy for the violation, the court may, if it determines that the remedy is appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the legislation and needed to assure the effectiveness | 3 | 4 |
Jones v. Bennettgreen2 sentences1998When a statute specifically incorporates a standard of care, "a jury finding of a statutory violation constitutes a finding of negligence." Eaton v. Eaton, 119 N.J. 628, 642-43 , 575 A. 2d 858 (1990); see also Jones v. Bennett, 306 N.J.Super. 476, 484 , 703 A. 2d 1008 (App.Div. 1998) (noting that normally "violation of a motor vehicle statute is evidence of negligence," but where "a motor vehicle statute codifies the common law standard, the violation of the statute is not evidence of negligence, it is negligence") (internal quotation and citation omitted). 1998When a statute specifically incorporates a standard of care, "a jury finding of a statutory violation constitutes a finding of negligence." Eaton v. Eaton, 119 N.J. 628, 642-43 , 575 A. 2d 858 (1990); see also Jones v. Bennett, 306 N.J.Super. 476, 484 , 703 A. 2d 1008 (App.Div. 1998) (noting that normally "violation of a motor vehicle statute is evidence of negligence," but where "a motor vehicle statute codifies the common law standard, the violation of the statute is not evidence of negligence, it is negligence") (internal quotation and citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Parks v. Pep Boys
green
2 sentences1998We note that [w]hen a legislative provision protects a class of persons by proscribing or requiring certain conduct but does not provide a civil remedy for the violation, the court may, if it determines that the remedy is appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the legislation and needed to assure the effectiveness of the provision, accord to an injured member of the class a right of action, using a suitable existing tort action or a new cause of action analogous to an existing tort action. [ Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 874A.] Not only may a violation of a statute "generate a civil r 1998We note that [w]hen a legislative provision protects a class of persons by proscribing or requiring certain conduct but does not provide a civil remedy for the violation, the court may, if it determines that the remedy is appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the legislation and needed to assure the effectiveness of the provision, accord to an injured member of the class a right of action, using a suitable existing tort action or a new cause of action analogous to an existing tort action. [ Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 874A.] Not only may a violation of a statute "generate a civil r | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Eaton v. Eaton
green
2 sentences1998When a statute specifically incorporates a standard of care, "a jury finding of a statutory violation constitutes a finding of negligence." Eaton v. Eaton, 119 N.J. 628, 642-43 , 575 A. 2d 858 (1990); see also Jones v. Bennett, 306 N.J.Super. 476, 484 , 703 A. 2d 1008 (App.Div. 1998) (noting that normally "violation of a motor vehicle statute is evidence of negligence," but where "a motor vehicle statute codifies the common law standard, the violation of the statute is not evidence of negligence, it is negligence") (internal quotation and citation omitted). 1998When a statute specifically incorporates a standard of care, "a jury finding of a statutory violation constitutes a finding of negligence." Eaton v. Eaton, 119 N.J. 628, 642-43 , 575 A. 2d 858 (1990); see also Jones v. Bennett, 306 N.J.Super. 476, 484 , 703 A. 2d 1008 (App.Div. 1998) (noting that normally "violation of a motor vehicle statute is evidence of negligence," but where "a motor vehicle statute codifies the common law standard, the violation of the statute is not evidence of negligence, it is negligence") (internal quotation and citation omitted). | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Bortz v. Rammel
neutral
2 sentences1995Super. 312, 321 , 376 A. 2d 1261 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 75 N.J. 539 , 384 A. 2d 518 (1977), Judge Pressler cited the "multi-faceted test" governing the right to a civil remedy contained in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 874A at 65 (Tentative Draft No. 23, April 1977), which stated: When a legislative provision proscribes or requires certain conduct for the benefit of a class of persons but does not provide a civil remedy for the violation, the court may, if it determines that the remedy is appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the legislation and needed to assure the effectiveness 1995Super. 312, 321 , 376 A. 2d 1261 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 75 N.J. 539 , 384 A. 2d 518 (1977), Judge Pressler cited the "multi-faceted test" governing the right to a civil remedy contained in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 874A at 65 (Tentative Draft No. 23, April 1977), which stated: When a legislative provision proscribes or requires certain conduct for the benefit of a class of persons but does not provide a civil remedy for the violation, the court may, if it determines that the remedy is appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the legislation and needed to assure the effectiveness | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.