TortsNegligenceNegligence per seVicarious liabilitypoisonstatutory dutylabeling requirementprotected class
Facts
The defendant's clerk, while acting in the course of his employment in the defendant's drug-store, sold the plaintiff's intestate a deadly poison without labeling it "Poison" as required by statute. The statutes at issue had substantially the same requirements and were aimed at protecting the public from the dangerous qualities of poison. In ignorance of the poison's deadly character, the intestate consumed it. The poison caused her death.
Issue
Does violation of a statute requiring poison to be labeled support civil liability, even though the statute does not expressly create a civil action and the sale was made by the defendant's clerk rather than the defendant personally?
Rule
When a statute or municipal ordinance imposes a specific duty for the protection or benefit of others, a person who neglects that duty is liable to those for whose protection it was imposed for injuries of the kind the law was designed to prevent and that were proximately caused by the neglect. The resulting suit is a common-law negligence action, and the statutory violation fixes the standard of duty so that the violation is negligence per se. Under ordinary agency principles, a master is civilly liable for the negligence of a servant committed in the course of employment.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Milwaukee, Nora Bell bought a bottle of industrial solvent from Lakeview Remedies, a neighborhood chemical shop. A Wisconsin statute requires every bottle of a listed toxic substance sold to the public to bear a conspicuous label stating "POISON" so that members of the public are warned of its dangerous character; the clerk sold Nora an unlabeled bottle, and, not knowing what it was, she drank some of it and suffered severe internal injuries.
If Nora sues the shop owner for negligence, which argument most strongly supports liability under the majority's rule?
Explanation. When a statute imposes a specific duty for the protection or benefit of others, a person who neglects that duty is liable to those for whose protection it was imposed for injuries of the character the statute was designed to prevent, if proximately caused by the violation. The action remains a common-law negligence action, and the statutory violation fixes the standard of duty, making the violation negligence per se. (Derived from Osborn v. McMasters (n.d.).)