Stachniewicz v. Mar-Cam Corp.
Supreme
Court of
259
Or. 583, 488 P.2d 436.
Prosser,
pp. 202-205
Facts: The plaintiff got in a bar
brawl and sued the operator of the bar for negligence. His action is based on a statute that says
that drunken people must not be given any more drinks and a regulation that
says that a holder of an alcohol license mustn’t allow things to get out of
hand in their establishment. The trial
court refused to allow either negligence theory and the jury found for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed.
Issue: Do the statutes the plaintiff
cites constitute negligence per se?
Rule: The court may adopt a statute
or regulation as the standard of conduct for a reasonable man if the law or
rule more or less is designed to protect the plaintiff against the harm he
actually suffered.[1]
Analysis: The court rejects negligence
based on the theory of the statute the plaintiff cites because it would be next
to impossible to conclude that the extra drink was the actual cause of the
drunken person beating up the defendant.
However, the court finds merit in the negligence theory based on the
regulation. The court argues that the regulation
is designed to protect bar patrons from bar brawls, and thus can be used as a
reasonable man standard in this case.
Conclusion: The court reversed the verdict
and remanded the case for a new trial.