Statute

Question 1

Osborne v. McMasters

Answer 1

Pharmacy sold bottle of unlabeled poison to customer.

Rule: If a person neglects to perform a duty imposed by either statute or common law and that law is designed for the protection of others, then the evidence of the act or omission constitutes negligence per se.

Court held: Based on the relevant statute, McMasters had a duty to provide warning labels to protect the public from poisonous substances. He failed to fulfill this duty, and is thus liable for negligence per se and damages caused to Osborne.

Question 2

Gorris v. Scott

Answer 2

Sheep fell over board during a storm:

Rule: The negligent acts complained of under a specific statute must be directly related to the purposes of the statute in order for the action to be successful.

Court held: ∆ not liable. Statute was not meant to protect against sheep going over board, only meant to protect against contagious diseases. Outside of the category which the statute was meant to protect.

Question 3

Martin v. Herzog

Answer 3

Rule: An omission, or failure to perform an act required by statute, constitutes negligence per se.

Cardozo held: Failing to follow a statutory duty that was enacted in order to safeguard others necessarily means that an individual has not met the standard of diligence required. As a result, this failure is not just evidence of negligence, but is negligence per se.

Question 4

Tedlia v. Ellman

Answer 4

Woman and her brother were hit by a car while walking on the wrong side of the street

Rule: A person who violates a statute governing conduct is not always negligent per se.

Court held: if a statute merely codifies the common law or regulates conflicting rights in a manner designed to promote public convenience and safety, then failure to follow that statute for good cause is not negligence unless there is clear language to the contrary. In this case, it is reasonably assumed that the statute is designed to protect pedestrians walking along the road by directing them to walk so that they can better see potentially dangerous traffic.

Question 5

UHR v. East Greenbush School

Answer 5

Rule: When a private cause of action would be inconsistent with the legislative intent of the statute, then no private cause of action exists.

Court held: School not liable because private action against the school was contrary to legislative intent. Economic consequences of providing liability would defeat the purpose of theastatute

Question 6

Brown v. Shyne

Answer 6

Chiropractor performed procedures on π without a license.

Rule: If violation of the statute by the defendant was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury, then the plaintiff may recover upon proof of violation. If violation of the statute has no direct bearing on the injury, proof of the violation becomes irrelevant.

Court held: The fact that ∆ did not have a license was irrelevant to the injury. He practiced with reasonable care. Statute was meant to prevent practice of unskilled or careless practitioners but, mere failure to obtain a license does not mean the procedure was done carelessly.