Abstract
I. Introduction
II. Special Purposes for Admission … A. To Prove Knowledge of Danger … B. To Show Feasibility of Safeguards … C. By Plaintiff to Show Absence of Contributory Negligence … D. By Defendant to Show Plaintiff’s Contributory Negligence … E. Duty to Make Rules and Enforce Them
III. Relation of the Rules to the Standard of Care in Negligence Actions … A. In General … B. As Admissions or Declarations against Interest … C. As a Circumstance under Which the Employee Acts … D. Comparison with Statutes, Ordinances, and Administrative Regulations … 1. A City’s Violation of Its Own Ordinances … E. Comparison with Custom or Habit
IV. Policy Arguments against Admissibility
V. Compliance as Evidence of Due Care
VI. Irrelevant Rules … A. Written Rule Limitation … B. Purpose Limitation … C. Conflict Limitation … D. Interpretation Limitation … E. Time Limitation
VII. Instructions, Weight, and Effect upon Jury in General
VIII. Rules to Prove an Act
IX. The Servant v. Master Class
X. Conclusion
Recommended Citation
John M. Winters,
The Evidentiary Value of Defendant’s Safety Rules in a Negligence Action,
38 Neb. L. Rev. 906
(1959)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol38/iss4/3