Torts I, Pages 218–219

Osborne v. McMasters

Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1889

Facts:

Defendant's clerk sold plaintiff's intestate a deadly poison without labeling it "poison," as statute requires one to do.

Procedural History:

Lower court ruled for plaintiff.

Issue:

Is violating a statute made to protect people negligence by itself?

Rule:

Violation of a statute that is for the protection or benefit of others constitutes conclusive evidence of negligence.

Reasoning:

Defendant clearly violated statute that protected people.

Holding:

Yes, violating a statute made to protect people is negligence by itself. Affirmed.

Dropbox – Your stuff, anywhere – Try it free