## Facts

- American National Insurance Co. owned the Huber Hotel in Muskogee, Oklahoma.
- The company leased the hotel’s coffee shop to Mrs. Schultz, who operated it independently; the owner exercised no control over her operation.
- To address a rat problem, the hotel owner furnished the tenant with cans of commercially sold rat poison for use in the restaurant.
- The poison was an ordinary commercial product sold through grocery stores and supplied in a tin container with a label identifying it as “RAT DOOM” poison and describing it as a phosphorus paste.
- A can of the rat poison was placed near the steam table/burner area in the coffee shop.
- Frances Larrimore, an employee in the coffee shop, had duties that included lighting the steam table.
- While attempting to light the steam table, Larrimore lit a match and extended it into the steam table area near where the gas burner would ignite; before turning on the gas, a flash or explosion occurred.
- The explosion apparently resulted from ignition of a can of the rat poison near Larrimore’s hand, and she suffered severe burns.
- Larrimore sued the hotel owner for personal injuries, alleging (among other things) that furnishing and allowing the poison to be laid out violated an Oklahoma statute making it a misdemeanor to lay out poison except “in a safe place on his own premises.”
- The case was tried to the court (no jury). The trial court entered judgment for the defendant, finding the product was ordinary and that the defendant had no actual knowledge of any explosive or highly inflammable character beyond the poison’s toxic nature.
- Larrimore appealed, arguing the statute established negligence per se and that the defendant should be liable for the explosion injuries.

## Issues

1. Whether violation of the Oklahoma poison-placement statute (Section 2440, O.S. 1931, 21 Okla. St. Ann. § 1197) rendered the hotel owner negligent per se where the plaintiff was injured by an explosion rather than by poisoning.
2. Whether a statutory-violation theory requires the plaintiff to show the injury resulted from the type of hazard the statute was meant to prevent and that the violation had a causal connection to the injury.
3. Whether, apart from the statute, the hotel owner was negligent in furnishing the rat poison without warning when there was no showing of actual knowledge or a reasonably anticipated risk of explosion from its expected use.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the defendant.
- The court held that violation of the poison-placement statute did not constitute negligence per se in an action by a plaintiff injured solely by an explosion of the poison.
- The court held that it was not enough to show a statutory violation; the plaintiff also had to show her injury resulted from exposure to the hazard the statute sought to prevent and that the unlawful act had a causal connection with the injury.
- The court held that “safe place,” as used in the statute, concerns safety in relation to the substance’s poisonous character (preventing poisoning of people or protected animals), not hazards unrelated to poisoning such as ignition or explosion.
- The court further held that, absent evidence of actual knowledge, one who furnishes a dangerous substance is not charged with anticipating injury from an unexpected use that does not trigger the hazard associated with the intended use, and no warning is required where no danger is reasonably to be anticipated.

## Legal Principles

- A statutory violation supports negligence per se only when the plaintiff’s injury is caused by the kind of hazard the statute was designed to prevent and the plaintiff is within the class the statute seeks to protect.
- It is not enough to show breach of a statutory duty; the plaintiff must also show the injury resulted from exposure to the hazard addressed by the statute.
- An unlawful act does not place a party outside legal protection unless the unlawful act has some causal connection with the injury complained of.
- In the poison-placement statute, “safe place” means safe with respect to the substance’s poisonous character (to avoid poisoning people or protected animals), not safety from unrelated risks such as explosion.
- One who furnishes a dangerous article or substance is not, without proof of actual knowledge, charged with knowledge that injury may result from an unexpected use that does not bring into operation the hazard associated with the intended use.
- Notice or warning is not required where no danger is reasonably to be anticipated.

## Conclusion

Because Larrimore’s burns were caused by an explosion rather than poisoning, the poison-placement statute did not apply in a way that made the hotel owner negligent per se, and the plaintiff failed to show the statutory violation (if any) was tied to the type of harm the statute aimed to prevent or otherwise foreseeably caused her injury; the Supreme Court therefore affirmed judgment for the defendant.


Larrimore v. American National Insurance Co., 184 Okl. 614, 89 P.2d 340 (1939)