CALL/TXT UTAH CAR ACCIDENT INJURY LAWYER JAKE GUNTER (801) 373-6345. FREE CONSULT.
The Utah Traffic Code as of 2024 has 20 chapters full of possible safety statutes. See Utah Code 41-6A-101. Violation of a traffic safety law can be used against the at-fault driver to show negligence. 
Example: Rear-End Car Accident on State Street, Orem, Utah. You are rear-ended on Orem State Street causing you knee surgery. The at-fault driver who rear-ended you was cited for following too closely under Utah Code 41-6a-711. If your injury case proceeded to a jury trial the jury would be instructed that violation of Utah Code 41-6a-711 may be used as evidence of negligence.
Utah attorney Jake Gunter has over 20 years of experience trying cases to juries. Hiring a proven trial lawyer will get you better results.
CALL/TXT UTAH CAR ACCIDENT LAWYER JAKE GUNTER FOR A FREE CONSULTAION REGARDING YOUR CAR ACCIDENT. (801) 373-6345.
Below is Utah’s civil jury instruction CV212 regarding violation of a safety statute.
CV212 Violation of a safety law.
Violation of a safety law is evidence of negligence unless the violation is excused. Plaintiff claims that the at-fault Defendant violated a safety law that says:
Utah Code 41-6a-711 states it is important to not follow a vehicle in front of you too closely as you may rear-end that vehicle causing damages and injuries.
If you decide that driver defendant violated this safety law, you must decide whether the violation is excused.
Defendant driver claims the violation is excused because:
[(1) Obeying the law would have created an even greater risk of harm.] OR
[(2) [He] could not obey the law because [he] faced an emergency that [he] did not create.] OR
[(3) [He] was unable to obey the law despite a reasonable effort to do so.] OR
[(4) [He] was incapable of obeying the law.] OR
[(5) [He] was incapable of understanding what the law required.]
If you decide that Defendant driver violated the safety law and that the violation was not excused, you may consider the violation as evidence of negligence. If you decide that Defendant driver did not violate the safety law or that the violation should be excused, you must disregard the violation and decide whether Defendant driver acted with reasonable care under the circumstances.
References
Child v. Gonda, 972 P.2d 425 (Utah 1998).
Hall v. Warren, 692 P.2d 737 (Utah 1984).
Intermountain Farmers Ass’n v. Fitzgerald, 574 P.2d 1162 (Utah 1978).
Thompson v. Ford Motor Co., 16 Utah 2d 30; 395 P.2d 62 (1964).
Gaw v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Transp., 798 P.2d 1130 (Utah App. 1990).
Jorgensen v. Issa, 739 P.2d 80 (Utah App. 1987).
Committee Notes
Before giving this instruction, the judge should decide whether the safety law applies. The safety law applies if:
(1) the plaintiff belongs to a class of people that the law is intended to protect; and
(2) the law is intended to protect against the type of harm that occurred as a result of the violation.
The judge should include the instruction on excused violations only if there is evidence to support an excuse and include only those grounds for which there is evidence.