"Discussion 1: Interpreting and Applying Statutes"

• Some states have statutes which say that breach of the statute is negligence per se. This means that proof of a statutory violation is conclusive on the issue of an actor's duty and breach.
• But even in some of these jurisdictions, the jury will listen to an "excuse," such as a landlord's lack of notice of a defect as in the Sikora v. Wenzel case at 727 N.E. 2d 1277 (Ohio 2000) and at p. 148 of your textbook. Here, the second owner of condominium building had no notice that the building's Certificate of Occupancy was issued without re-inspection, after plans were modified by first owner, to add decks. A deck collapsed and Sikora, a guest, was injured. An engineer concluded that the deck collapsed from improper construction and design, in violation of Ohio Basic Building Code.
• Part A:Discuss whether or not a state's statutory scheme should ever allow for excuses, such as a lack of notice, to be accepted to avoid a finding of negligence for building code violations, which result in injury.
• Part B:Discuss whether or not states should draft public safety statutes on such topics as electrical fire safety, or use of smoke alarms, or sterilization of needles, or DUI, as strict liability statutes. Strict liability means that negligence is attributed regardless of fault and regardless of excuses.