Facts
- A 14-year-old minor and a 13-year-old companion went to a retail store in Austin, Minnesota.
- A store clerk sold two pints of glue containing an aromatic hydrocarbon solvent to the 13-year-old, a sale prohibited by Minn. Stat. § 145.38.
- Shortly after the purchase, the minors intentionally inhaled the glue fumes.
- The 14-year-old was affected by the fumes, fell into a creek, and drowned.
- The decedent’s trustee sued the store owner and clerk for wrongful death based on the statutory violation.
- The store owner and clerk sought (1) contribution from the 13-year-old purchaser and (2) contractual indemnity from the glue manufacturer.
- The trial court treated Minn. Stat. § 145.38 as creating absolute liability, ruled contributory negligence and assumption of risk unavailable, entered judgment for the trustee on stipulated facts, and denied the third-party claims.
Issues
- Whether violation of Minn. Stat. § 145.38 creates absolute liability for a retailer for the wrongful death of a minor resulting from intentional glue sniffing, even if the decedent was not the purchaser.
- Whether comparative negligence and assumption of risk are available defenses in an action predicated on Minn. Stat. § 145.38.
- Whether the retailer and clerk may obtain contribution from the minor purchaser who also violated Minn. Stat. § 145.39 by improper use of the glue.
- Whether a contractual indemnity clause can shift to the manufacturer liability arising from the retailer’s violation of Minn. Stat. § 145.38.
Decision
- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the trustee against the retailer and clerk.
- The court held that a sale in violation of Minn. Stat. § 145.38 imposes absolute liability for the wrongful death of another minor when death results from intentional sniffing of the glue.
- The court held that assumption of risk and comparative negligence do not apply to liability imposed under § 145.38.
- The court denied contribution from the minor purchaser, concluding his conduct was not an independent proximate cause but a reaction to the original wrongful sale.
- The court denied contractual indemnity against the manufacturer, holding that a contract cannot relieve a party from liability for breach of an absolute statutory duty enacted for the protection of others.
Legal Principles
- When a protective statute imposes an absolute duty on a class of actors, violation of that duty may create absolute liability for harms the statute was designed to prevent, if the violation is a proximate cause of the injury.
- In an action imposing absolute liability under a statute designed to protect minors from a specific danger, assumption of risk and comparative negligence are unavailable where allowing them would defeat the statute’s protective purpose.
- Contribution is unavailable where the third party’s conduct is not independent of the defendant’s statutory violation and does not constitute a legally sufficient, separate proximate cause of the harm.
- Contractual indemnity is unenforceable to the extent it purports to shift liability for breach of an absolute statutory duty imposed for the protection of others; such an agreement is void as against public policy.
Conclusion
The court imposed absolute liability on a retailer and clerk for wrongful death resulting from an illegal sale of specified glue to a minor, barred comparative fault defenses, rejected contribution from the minor purchaser as nonindependent of the statutory violation, and held contractual indemnity unenforceable when it would excuse breach of a statutorily imposed protective duty.