Page:Shannon v. Wilson.pdf/3

Rh
 * 1) N.—The violation of a statute is evidence of negligence; on the issue of proximate cause, it is often enough to point out that the act could not have occurred if the law had been obeyed; a licensed vendor's violation of the statute prohibiting the sale of alcohol to minors is evidence of negligence to be submitted to a jury.
 * 2) I.—On the basis of past cases decided by the supreme court regarding its obligation to adapt the common law to an ever-changing society and as a matter of policy, the supreme court recognized a common-law cause of action against a vendor of liquor who knowingly sells alcohol to a minor; therefore, the holding in Carr v. Turner, 238 Ark. 889, 385 S.W. 2d 656 (1965), was modified to allow juries to determine whether the violation of the criminal statute prohibiting the sale of alcohol to minors by a licensed vendor is the proximate cause of any subsequent alcohol-related injury to a minor or third party; a licensed vendor who violates the regulatory policy and the criminal statutes of the state by selling alcohol to minors should be held accountable for any consequences of that action if a jury determines that the results were foreseeable; therefore, violations of the statute prohibiting the sale of alcohol to minors by licensed vendors can be presented to a jury as evidence of negligence, with the jury to determine whether such was the proximate cause of any harm.
 * 3) I.—The supreme court declared that the rule of vendor liability adopted in this case should be prospectively applied; there shall be liability for acts of negligence of a vendor selling to a minor pursuant to the application of this holding commencing with trials held on or after the date that the court's opinion becomes final; with respect to the claim at issue, the supreme court's decision was given immediate effect so that the efforts of a litigant to bring about needed changes in the law would