## Facts

- A Structural Metals, Inc. truck driven by Joe Polanco collided with a passenger car near a highway intersection.
- Three car occupants, including Mrs. Impson, died; two others were injured.
- Plaintiffs sued on behalf of the rear-seat passengers and an estate; contributory negligence issues regarding the car’s driver were not before the court.
- A Texas traffic safety statute prohibited driving on the left side of the roadway within 100 feet of an intersection.
- Polanco attempted to overtake and pass the car on the left within the statute’s 100-foot zone.
- While the truck was in the left lane passing, the car turned left into the intersection, and the truck struck it.
- The jury found Polanco violated the 100-foot statute and that the statutory violation was a proximate cause of the collision.
- The trial court treated the statutory violation as negligence per se and entered judgment for plaintiffs without submitting a separate common-law negligence question.
- The intermediate appellate court ordered a new trial, reasoning that asserted “justification or excuse” evidence required submission of a negligence issue to the jury.

## Issues

1. When a defendant violates a traffic safety statute and the violation is found to be a proximate cause, must the jury also decide “negligence” if the defendant offers evidence labeled as excuse or justification?
2. What qualifies as legally sufficient “excuse” evidence to avoid negligence per se for violation of a safety statute?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of civil appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment for plaintiffs.
- The Court held the statutory violation constituted negligence per se.
- The Court held defendants produced no legally sufficient evidence of a recognized excuse or justification for violating the statute.
- Because the violation was unexcused as a matter of law and proximate cause was found, no separate negligence submission was required.

## Legal Principles

- Violation of an applicable traffic safety statute designed to prevent the type of harm that occurred constitutes negligence per se.
- A statutory violator avoids negligence per se only by producing legally substantial evidence of a recognized excuse.
- Recognized excuse categories include: incapacity; lack of knowledge (and no reason to know) of the occasion for compliance; inability after reasonable diligence to comply; emergency not caused by the actor’s own misconduct; or that compliance would create a greater risk of harm.
- Not every asserted explanation for why the violation occurred creates a jury question; only evidence that fits a recognized excuse category requires negligence to be submitted as a fact issue.

## Conclusion

The court held that once the jury found a traffic-statute violation and proximate cause, the trial court properly treated the violation as negligence per se and entered judgment for plaintiffs because defendants’ asserted circumstances did not amount to a legally recognized excuse.


Impson v. Structural Metals, Inc., 487 S.W.2d 694 (Tex. 1972)