Williams v. Hill Mfg. Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 01 February 1980
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 79-664.
• Citation: 489 F. Supp. 20
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
• Parties: George WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. HILL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., Defendant.

489 F. Supp. 20

George WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. HILL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 79-664.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division.

February 1, 1980.

John E. Parker, Hampton, S.C., for plaintiff.

William H. Grimball, Charleston, S.C., for defendant.

HEMPHILL, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff has brought a tort action against defendant alleging that a drum of explosive chemical, Xylene, was negligently and improperly labeled¹ which resulted in an explosion which injured plaintiff when he was directed to cut upon an empty drum in order to make a trash can. Defendant has moved to strike that portion of the complaint which alleges that defendant was negligent, "In violating the Department of Transportation's rules and regulations concerning the shipment of flammables," on grounds that defendant is not a member of the class meant to be protected by the regulations in question. Oral argument was presented to this court in Charleston on January 28, 1980, and after consideration of the briefs and arguments of counsel, this court finds that said reference to the Department of Transportation's rules and regulations should be stricken.

Plaintiff was an employee of the Town of Hampton, S. C., when this accident occurred. Defendant had shipped a 55 gallon drum containing a herbicide called Xylene, to plaintiff from its plant in Atlanta, Georgia, some fourteen months before. Plaintiff was injured when he attempted to remove the end of the drum with a cutting torch. The drum was empty, and had been for some time, but allegedly contained explosive vapors.

The effect of conduct which violates certain statutes designed to provide for the safety of others varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. A violation of the enactment may constitute negligence per se, or create a presumption of negligence, or make out a prima facie case of negligence, or constitute evidence of negligence, depending on the legal doctrine followed in the given jurisdiction. 57 Am.Jur.2d "Negligence," §§ 234, 239.

In determining whether a civil action may be based upon the violation of a statute, the courts apply one or more of a number of tests, all of which seem to embody the same general idea. Three of the most commonly applied are: (1) Whether the legislature intended to create a private liability, as distinguished from one of a public character; (2) Whether the person injured is a person or a member of a class for whose benefit or protection the law is enacted; and (3) Whether the injury complained of was such as the enactment was intended to prevent. 73 Am.Jur.2d "Statutes," §§ 432, 433, 438; 57 Am.Jur.2d "Negligence," §§ 238, 253; Restatement, Torts 2d §§ 286, 288 (1965).

If any one of these tests is not satisfied, the courts will not adopt the requirements of the legislative enactment as the standard of conduct of a reasonable man. 57 Am. Jur.2d "Negligence," §§ 238, 253. In such case, violation of the statute is neither negligence per se nor even evidence of negligence, and can have no effect on liability at all. Thus, in the case of Labbee v. Roadway Express, Inc., 469 F.2d 169 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury regarding the effect of a safety provision of the United States Department of Transportation. In doing so, the court wrote:

Missouri is one of those states where violation of a statute of this kind is evidence of negligence in a civil action. . . . However, before such a violation may be evidence of negligence, it must be shown that the statute was intended to protect against the sort of harm that occurred.

469 F.2d at 171.

So also, in Mead v. Parker, 340 F.2d 157 (6th Cir. 1965), the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the parking of a vending truck on the wrong side of a city street in violation of the municipal ordinance did not constitute negligence as to the plaintiffs for the reason that the ordinance was for the control and benefit of vehicular traffic and not for the protection of pedestrians, and that the plaintiff child was not a beneficiary of the ordinance. 340 F.2d at 158.

In accord, Robertson v. Yazoo & M.V.R. Co., 154 Miss. 182, 122 So. 371 (1929); Mansfield v. Wagner Electric Mfg. Co., 294 Mo. 235, 242 S.W. 400 (1922); Carter v. Redmond, 142 Tenn. 258, 218 S.W. 217 (1920). Contra, Butler v. L. Sonneborn & Sons, Inc., 296 F.2d 623 (2d Cir. 1961).

In South Carolina, the violation of an applicable statute is "negligence per se." Eickhoff v. Beard Laney, Inc., 199 S.C. 500, 20 S.E.2d 153, 141 A.L.R. 1010 (1942). And it is clear that with regard to this rule, South Carolina has adopted the statutory purpose doctrine and has used the three tests enumerated above in applying it. See Taggart v. Home Finance Group, Inc., 239 S.C. 345, 123 S.E.2d 250 (1961); Bell v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 202 S.C. 160, 24 S.E.2d 177 (1943); Smoak v. Martin, 108 S.C. 472, 94 S.E. 869 (1918); Griffin v. State Highway Department, 170 S.C. 403, 170 S.E. 459 (1915); 11 S.C.L.Q. 207 (1959). See also 57 Am.Jur.2d "Negligence," § 260 at 644-45.

A typical example appears in Hutto v. Southern Ry. Co., 100 S.C. 181, 84 S.E. 719 (1915), where the Supreme Court applied both the second and third tests. Here the plaintiff alleged as the only grounds of negligence on the part of the defendant that the defendant violated a section of the South Carolina Code requiring the sounding of a train bell and whistle five hundred (500) yards from railroad crossings or public places. The only issue in the case was whether the defendant's negligence, in failing to give the signals required by the statute at such crossings, gave the plaintiff a cause of action where the plaintiff was working in a field near the railroad track and about two hundred (200) yards from the crossing when injured by the fright of his horse caused by the passing of a train which had failed to give the crossing signal. The court ruled that the statute was not enacted for the protection of persons in the plaintiff's position and that the defendant owed no duty to the plaintiff because the plaintiff's injury had no connection with the use or intended use of the crossing. The court mentioned that had the case been brought under the common law principles, proof of the failure to give signals at a crossing could have been admitted as competent evidence in support of the charge of negligence, but that the statute itself was inapplicable.

In applying the statutory purpose doctrine in this case, it is necessary to examine the Transportation Safety Act of 1974 and in particular Chapter 27, governing hazardous materials. The initial thing to note is that Chapter 27 of the Act is entitled "Hazardous Materials Transportation" (emphasis added). The first section of this Chapter sets forth a congressional declaration of policy and states that:

It is declared to be the policy of Congress in this chapter to improve the regulatory and enforcement authority of the Secretary of Transportation to protect the Nation adequately against the risks to life and property which are inherent in the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce. (Emphasis added.)

Throughout this Chapter it appears that it was enacted with the intention of preventing harm to persons as a result of accidents while hazardous materials are in transit. This purpose is made more apparent by reviewing the legislative history of this Chapter, which is found in 1974 U.S.Code Cong. and Admin.News, p. 7669. In that portion of the...