Cabiroy v. Scipione

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the FDCA -7- J-A07019-17 does not contain a private cause of action
• holding that the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act could serve as a basis for a negligence per se claim, even though it does not provide for a private cause of action, because it was certainly intended to protect a particular class of individuals, such as the appellee
• “The concept of negligence per se establishes both duty and the required breach of duty where an individual violates an applicable statute, ordinance or regulation designed to prevent a public harm.”
• “The doctrine of per se liability does not create an independent basis of tort liability but rather establishes, by reference to a statutory scheme, the standard of care appropriate to the underlying tort.”
• “We conclude that although no private cause of action is set forth in the [Food, Drug, and Cosmetic] Act, it was certainly designed to protect a particular class of individuals . . . .”
• “[T]he doctrine of per se liability does not create an independent basis of tort liability but rather establishes, by reference to a statutory scheme, the standard of care appropriate to the underlying tort.” (alteration in original

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).