回複：回複：Could you please explain this sentence? I cant catch

to prove negligence per se, you have to prove that:
1. There is a criminal statute to prohibit the conduct. There is no doubt about that here since drunk driving would be prohibited by driving code.

2. The statute is designed to prevent the certain type of harm. which means, if the driving code in your state is designed ONLY to prevent car collision, hitting a perdestrian and so on, never intended to protect real property, then the statute can not be used under negligence per se.

3. The statute is designed to protect certain type of people you are in the same class. Which means, if the driving code is designed ONLY to protect other driver or perdestrian but not a dwelling house, then the statute can not be used.

Normally a judge will look into the legislature's intent when they enacted the statute to decide whether it is approriate. It is a matter of law. Even the statute is approriate the judge can still refuse to apply it. Again, it is a matter of law and the judge has his discretion to use or not use.

Instead of trespass to land, you can still claim under negligence, just not negligence per se. In torts, mental disability is not a defense so that the responsible driver would be treated as a reasonable sober man.