"negligence per se" meaning in All languages combined

{
  "head_templates": [
    {
      "args": {
        "1": "-",
        "head": "negligence per se"
      },
      "expansion": "negligence per se (uncountable)",
      "name": "en-noun"
    }
  ],
  "lang": "English",
  "lang_code": "en",
  "pos": "noun",
  "senses": [
    {
      "categories": [
        {
          "kind": "other",
          "name": "American English",
          "parents": [],
          "source": "w"
        },
        {
          "kind": "other",
          "name": "English entries with incorrect language header",
          "parents": [
            "Entries with incorrect language header",
            "Entry maintenance"
          ],
          "source": "w"
        },
        {
          "kind": "topical",
          "langcode": "en",
          "name": "Law",
          "orig": "en:Law",
          "parents": [
            "Justice",
            "Society",
            "All topics",
            "Fundamental"
          ],
          "source": "w"
        }
      ],
      "examples": [
        {
          "ref": "2008, Symeon C. Symeonides, “Rome II and Tort Conflicts: A Missed Opportunity”, in American Journal of Comparative Law, volume 56, number 1, pages 187 and 191",
          "text": "[…] blasting operations by a Swiss mining company in the Swiss Alps cause a snow avalanche in the French Alps injuring a group of English tourists. […] The lex loci damni rule [of the Rome II Regulation] does not produce good results in […] cross-border torts in which the state of conduct prescribes higher standards of conduct for the tortfeasor than the state of injury. Suppose for example that, in the above snow avalanche hypothetical, Switzerland imposes a negligence per se rule on mining operators who engage in blasting activities in certain areas or time periods, while France, in order to protect its mining industry, follows an ordinary negligence standard. In such a case, Article 4(1) calls for the application of French law and specifically excludes Swiss law. In contrast, if this were an environmental tort, Article 7 would allow the victim to opt for Swiss law.",
          "type": "quotation"
        }
      ],
      "glosses": [
        "An act considered negligent because it violates a statute or regulation."
      ],
      "id": "en-negligence_per_se-en-noun-MdduN6Bw",
      "links": [
        [
          "law",
          "law#English"
        ],
        [
          "act",
          "act"
        ],
        [
          "negligent",
          "negligent"
        ],
        [
          "violate",
          "violate"
        ],
        [
          "statute",
          "statute"
        ],
        [
          "regulation",
          "regulation"
        ]
      ],
      "raw_glosses": [
        "(US law) An act considered negligent because it violates a statute or regulation."
      ],
      "tags": [
        "US",
        "uncountable"
      ],
      "topics": [
        "law"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "word": "negligence per se"
}

{
  "head_templates": [
    {
      "args": {
        "1": "-",
        "head": "negligence per se"
      },
      "expansion": "negligence per se (uncountable)",
      "name": "en-noun"
    }
  ],
  "lang": "English",
  "lang_code": "en",
  "pos": "noun",
  "senses": [
    {
      "categories": [
        "American English",
        "English entries with incorrect language header",
        "English lemmas",
        "English multiword terms",
        "English nouns",
        "English terms with quotations",
        "English uncountable nouns",
        "en:Law"
      ],
      "examples": [
        {
          "ref": "2008, Symeon C. Symeonides, “Rome II and Tort Conflicts: A Missed Opportunity”, in American Journal of Comparative Law, volume 56, number 1, pages 187 and 191",
          "text": "[…] blasting operations by a Swiss mining company in the Swiss Alps cause a snow avalanche in the French Alps injuring a group of English tourists. […] The lex loci damni rule [of the Rome II Regulation] does not produce good results in […] cross-border torts in which the state of conduct prescribes higher standards of conduct for the tortfeasor than the state of injury. Suppose for example that, in the above snow avalanche hypothetical, Switzerland imposes a negligence per se rule on mining operators who engage in blasting activities in certain areas or time periods, while France, in order to protect its mining industry, follows an ordinary negligence standard. In such a case, Article 4(1) calls for the application of French law and specifically excludes Swiss law. In contrast, if this were an environmental tort, Article 7 would allow the victim to opt for Swiss law.",
          "type": "quotation"
        }
      ],
      "glosses": [
        "An act considered negligent because it violates a statute or regulation."
      ],
      "links": [
        [
          "law",
          "law#English"
        ],
        [
          "act",
          "act"
        ],
        [
          "negligent",
          "negligent"
        ],
        [
          "violate",
          "violate"
        ],
        [
          "statute",
          "statute"
        ],
        [
          "regulation",
          "regulation"
        ]
      ],
      "raw_glosses": [
        "(US law) An act considered negligent because it violates a statute or regulation."
      ],
      "tags": [
        "US",
        "uncountable"
      ],
      "topics": [
        "law"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "word": "negligence per se"
}