{"id":"DUT-SC-020","kind":"duty","level":"court","jurisdiction":"South Carolina","state":"SC","metro":"","industry":"","agency":"","eco":"","issuer":"Supreme Court of South Carolina (per curiam; certified question under Supreme Court Rule 46 from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina)","authority":"Whitlaw v. Kroger Co., 306 S.C. 51, 53-54, 410 S.E.2d 251 (1991)","instrument":"Whitlaw v. Kroger Co., 306 S.C. 51, 410 S.E.2d 251 (S.C. 1991) (heard Jan. 7, 1991; decided Oct. 14, 1991)","title":"Whether a private cause of action for damages may be instituted under S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-9-40 and 61-9-410; the test for negligence per se from violation of a protective statute","dateIssued":"1991-10-14","effective":"1991-10-14","end":"standing (controlling South Carolina doctrine on statutory duties in negligence)","startDate":"1991-10-14","endDate":"2021-09-30","quarters":["2020Q2","2020Q3","2020Q4","2021Q1","2021Q2","2021Q3"],"types":["DUTY","OTHER"],"addressees":["persons generally; businesses as defendants in negligence"],"clause":"If he then shows that the defendant violated the statute, he has proven the second element of a negligence cause of action: viz., that the defendant, by act or omission, failed to exercise due care. This constitutes proof of negligence per se.... The statute can establish a duty to plaintiff.... A breach of the duty can be found with a showing of violation of the statute.","enforcement":"civil liability in negligence (negligence per se) upon proof of proximate cause","functions":[],"notes":"Under South Carolina law a statute whose essential purpose is to protect against the kind of harm suffered, and whose protected class includes the plaintiff, establishes the defendant\u0027s duty of care, and violation of the statute is negligence per se, subject to proof of proximate cause; a business\u0027s disregard of the communicable-disease statutes, the emergency orders having \u0027the force and effect of law\u0027, the sanitary regulations or the occupational-safety statute was therefore negligence per se toward the customers and employees those laws protect. Character as recorded: adjudication (negligence per se; common-law duty).","sourceUrl":"https://static.case.law/sc/306/html/0051-01.html","snapshot":"","fileExists":true,"fileBytes":132328,"grade":"primary","character":"adjudication","description":"","collection":"DUT-SC","url":"/library/DUT-SC-020","exhibitUrl":"/exhibit/DUT-SC-020","citation":"Supreme Court of South Carolina (per curiam; certified question under Supreme Court Rule 46 from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina), Whitlaw v. Kroger Co., 306 S.C. 51, 410 S.E.2d 251 (S.C. 1991) (heard Jan. 7, 1991; decided Oct. 14, 1991) (standing) (Ex. DUT-SC-020)","stateName":"South Carolina","related":[]}