Zerby v. Warren
210 N.W.2d 58 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The violation of a statute designed to protect a specific class of persons from their own inability to exercise self-protective care creates absolute liability, and the defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk are not available to the violator.
Facts:
- On August 31, 1969, 14-year-old Steven J. Zerby and 13-year-old Randy Rieken went to a Coast-to-Coast Store owned by Chester L. Warren.
- Robert Deike, a clerk at the store, sold Rieken two pint containers of Weldwood Contact Cement.
- The glue contained toluene and was not part of a model construction kit, making its sale to a minor a violation of Minnesota Statute § 145.38.
- A few hours after the purchase, Zerby and Rieken inhaled the fumes from the glue.
- The inhalation of the fumes had an injurious effect on Zerby's central nervous system, causing him to fall into a creek and drown.
- The glue was manufactured by United States Plywood Corporation, and the purchase order for the product contained a clause in which the manufacturer agreed to indemnify the seller against liability arising from the sale of the product.
Procedural Posture:
- The decedent's next-of-kin brought a wrongful death action in a state trial court against Chester L. Warren, the store owner, and Robert Deike, his clerk.
- Defendants Warren and Deike filed a third-party action seeking contribution from Randy Rieken, the minor companion, and contractual indemnity from United States Plywood Corporation, the manufacturer.
- The trial court issued a pretrial ruling that the case would proceed solely under a theory of absolute liability and that defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk were unavailable.
- The parties waived a jury trial and submitted the case on stipulated facts.
- The trial court ordered judgment against defendants Warren and Deike and dismissed their third-party claims for contribution and indemnity.
- Defendants Warren and Deike appealed the trial court's denial of their motion for judgment notwithstanding the findings or for a new trial to the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the sale of glue to a minor in violation of a statute intended to protect minors from their inability to protect themselves create absolute liability for the retailer, thereby barring the defenses of comparative contributory negligence and assumption of risk?
Opinions:
Majority - Kelly, Justice.
Yes. The sale of glue to a minor in violation of Minn. St. § 145.38 creates absolute liability for the retailer, precluding the defenses of comparative contributory negligence and assumption of risk. The court reasoned that certain 'exceptional statutes' are designed not just to set a general standard of care, but to protect a limited class of persons from their own inexperience, lack of judgment, and inability to protect themselves. The statute prohibiting the sale of glue to minors falls into this category, alongside child labor laws and laws protecting intoxicated persons. The legislative purpose of such a statute is to place the entire responsibility for any resulting harm on the violator. Allowing defenses like contributory negligence would defeat the statute's protective purpose. The court also held that the adoption of comparative negligence does not alter this principle, as there can be no contributory negligence as a matter of law when a statute is designed to protect persons from their inability to protect themselves. Furthermore, the court disallowed a contribution claim against the decedent's companion, finding his actions were not an independent intervening cause but a foreseeable reaction to the original wrongful sale. Finally, the court voided the manufacturer's contractual indemnity provision as against public policy, because it attempted to relieve the seller of the consequences of violating an absolute duty imposed by law for the protection of the public.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the doctrine that violating a statute intended to protect a specific vulnerable class imposes absolute liability, stripping the defendant of common law defenses related to the plaintiff's own conduct. It establishes that the purpose of such protective statutes is to assign full responsibility to the party who breaches the statutory duty, a policy goal that would be undermined by allowing contribution or contributory negligence. The case serves as a key precedent for tort liability arising from the violation of public safety statutes, particularly those concerning the sale of dangerous products to minors. It also limits the enforceability of contractual indemnity clauses when they conflict with a duty imposed by a public safety law.
Unlock the full brief for Zerby v. Warren