Chewer. The state in which Susan lives has a statute prohibiting dogs running at large. All dogs are required to be on a leash whenever they are off the owner's premises. Susan's dog, while not on a leash, visits the home of a neighbor down the street. While there, the dog carries off an expensive pair of shoes belonging to Robert. The shoes are chewed and destroyed. A neighbor informed Robert of what had happened. Robert commented that he never should have left his $300 shoes lying on the deck in the first place but that he expects to be repaid by Susan. Robert found out that the dog had carried away a number of shoes and other articles in the neighborhood, chewing them to pieces. Susan did nothing to warn anyone. Robert thinks that she should be punished for her activities, which would perhaps deter her from allowing the dog to run loose. Upon which of the following theories will Robert likely rely in seeking recovery against Susan for his shoes?
A. Negligence per se.
B. Res ipsa loquitur.
C. Stare decisis.
D. Both negligence per se and res ipsa loquitur.
E None of these.

In common cases of negligence a person suing the other need to give proof of negligence. The plaintiff must give evidence that relate the conduct of the defendant to their damage or harm done to them which shows that the defendant action were the primary cause for that harm.

When a defendant however violates a regulation or municipal ordinance and as a result of that violation someone is harmed this now becomes negligence per se.

Now under negligence per se the defendant's actions are not evaluated to have been reasonable or not but are considered unreasonable since they violated the rule or regulation.

The plaintiff must be under the class protected by that law or regulation and there must evidence of violation of that law by the defendant.