Which of the following conditions can negate a defendant's liability under statutory negligence?

The choice that negates a defendant's liability under statutory negligence based on the context provided is when compliance with the statute would be more dangerous than non-compliance. This scenario emphasizes that a defendant may not be held liable if adhering to the statutory requirement could result in a greater risk of harm than if they had not followed the statute. The rationale behind this principle is centered on public safety and practicality; if following the law would lead to a higher potential for danger or injury, it may be deemed more reasonable for the defendant to act contrary to the statute.

This concept is rooted in the understanding of negligence, which requires a breach of a standard of care. If the statute itself, when followed, imposes a risk that outweighs the intended safety benefits, then adhering to the statute could imply improper conduct rather than negligence. Therefore, if a defendant can demonstrate that compliance with the statute would create a riskier situation, it can serve as a defense against a finding of statutory negligence.

Other options, while certainly relevant in discussions of liability, do not inherently negate liability in the way that this condition does. The vagueness of a statute might lead to challenges in its enforcement but does not automatically absolve liability. Awareness of the statute by the plaintiff does