UT · jury_instructions
MUJI 2d CV212
Violation of a safety law.
Violation of a safety law is evidence of negligence unless the violation is excused. [name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] violated a safety law that says:
[Summarize or quote the statute, ordinance or rule.]
If you decide that [name of defendant] violated this safety law, you must decide whether the violation is excused.
[Name of defendant] claims the violation is excused because:
[(1) Obeying the law would have created an even greater risk of harm.]
[(2) [He] could not obey the law because [he] faced an emergency that [he] did not create.]
[(3) [He] was unable to obey the law despite a reasonable effort to do so.]
[(4) [He] was incapable of obeying the law.]
[(5) [He] was incapable of understanding what the law required.]
If you decide that [name of defendant] violated the safety law and that the violation was not excused, you may consider the violation as evidence of negligence. If you decide that [name of defendant] did not violate the safety law or that the violation should be excused, you must disregard the violation and decide whether [name of defendant] acted with reasonable care under the circumstances.
Provenance
- Source
- legacy.utcourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-22
- Edition
- 2026-08-21
- Content hash
6fb9cefafb87abfe97610af7fcae2ca968841b99930402386214140976552e30
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.