The COVID Project
The record
- Jurisdiction
- South Carolina
- Level
- Court
- Authority
- Whitlaw v. Kroger Co., 306 S.C. 51, 53-54, 410 S.E.2d 251 (1991)
- Issued
- 1991-10-14 Oct. 14, 1991
- Effective
- 1991-10-14
- End
- standing (controlling South Carolina doctrine on statutory duties in negligence) (read as 2021-09-30)
- In force
- Standing since Oct. 14, 1991 (a statutory duty; in force throughout the six quarters)
- Quarters
- 2020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q3
2020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q3
- Limitation types
- Standing dutyOther
- Addressees
- persons generally; businesses as defendants in negligence
- Character
- adjudication
- Collection
- Standing duties: South Carolina DUT-SC
Operative words
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.
Penalty
civil liability in negligence (negligence per se) upon proof of proximate cause
What it required
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's duty of care, and violation of the statute is negligence per se, subject to proof of proximate cause; a business's disregard of the communicable-disease statutes, the emergency orders having 'the force and effect of law', 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).
Retrieval noteText of the opinion from the Harvard Law School Library Caselaw Access Project's digitization of 306 S.C. 51 (static.case.law). CourtListener holds the same opinion (cluster 1388380; dateFiled 1991-10-14) but blocks automated retrieval. The Court's formulation of the two-part Rayfield test: 'the plaintiff must show two things: (1) that the essential purpose of the statute is to protect from the kind of harm the plaintiff has suffered; and (2) that he is a member of the class of persons the statute is intended to protect.'.