unexcused violation in Louisiana

1998In Moses v. Mosley, La.App. 3 Cir., 146 So.2d 263, 267 , we summarized established jurisprudence to the following effect: `(W)here a statute is enacted to protect the class of persons in which the plaintiff is included against the type of loss or injury which in fact has been sustained, an unexcused violation of such a statute is `negligence per se,' and this negligence is actionable if it is a legal or proximate cause of the accident. * * * (Citations omitted).' The violation is a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury if the risk or harm encountered by him fall within the scope of the sta

1966The Court of Appeal stated the rule applicable here with extraordinary precision in Moses v. Mosley, supra: “[WJhere a statute is enacted to protect the class of persons in which the plaintiff is included against the type of loss or injury which in fact has been sustained, an unexcused violation of such a statute is ‘negligence per se’ * * *.” In countering the liability from defendant’s breach of the foregoing statutory duty, the majority holds “controlling” the common law rule that an injured inebriate has no redress against the vendor of intoxicating liquor for illegal or negligent sales to

1998Dixie Drive It Yourself System New Orleans Co. v. American Beverage Co., 242 La. 471 , 137 So.2d 298 . *702 Lee v. Carwile, 168 So.2d 469, 471 (La.App. 3 Cir.1964). [3] In accord, Pierre v. Allstate Ins.

1998Dixie Drive It Yourself System New Orleans Co. v. American Beverage Co., 242 La. 471 , 137 So.2d 298 . *702 Lee v. Carwile, 168 So.2d 469, 471 (La.App. 3 Cir.1964). [3] In accord, Pierre v. Allstate Ins.