Which scenario represents negligence per se?

Negligence per se is a legal doctrine which holds that an act is considered inherently negligent because it violates a statute or regulation designed to protect public safety. In this scenario, when a defendant pleads guilty to a traffic violation that injures another individual, the violation of the traffic law itself can be seen as evidence of negligence. The law establishes a standard of conduct; by violating it, the defendant has not only broken the law but has also acted in a way that showed a disregard for the safety of others, fulfilling the elements required for negligence per se.

Under this doctrine, if the injured party can show that they belong to the class the statute is designed to protect and that the harm suffered was of the type the statute aims to prevent, then negligence is established without needing to prove that the defendant acted unreasonably. Thus, the admission of guilt directly ties the violation to the injury sustained, making this scenario a clear example of negligence per se.

The other options do not illustrate negligence per se as effectively. The second option involves an accidental action where no statute was violated, the third option indicates an acquittal, and the fourth one involves a civil penalty without indicating any statutory breach or direct link to negligence.