F: P decedent drank poison and died. P brought an action for damages against D, a pharmacist, for selling the poison w/o proper labeling.
TC ruled in favor of P. Appeal by D
I: whether the violation of a statute provide the person injured by its violation with a cause of action for the damages he or she sustained as a result
R: person who breaches a duty imposed on him by statute is liable for injuries to those whom the statute is desgined to protect if the injures resulted from his breach
A: In this case, the result may not have been different in the absence of the statute. The CL also provides a remedy for those
injured through the negligence of others. The only difference is that in the one case the measure of legal duty is to be
determined upon CL principles, while in the other the statutte fixes it, so that the violation of the statute constitutes conclusive evidence of negligence. Here the legal duty the D breached was one imposed by statute
Co: negligence per se doesn’t eliminate the elements of negligence (duty elements)
The duty element is supplemented by the existing statute.
Unplug the reasonable men test, plug in the statutory standard instead.
Not all the statute, but the statute that imposes the protection of others and specific duty.