534 A.2d 1268 (1987)

RONG YAO ZHOU, et al., Appellants,
v.
JENNIFER MALL RESTAURANT, INC., Appellee.

No. 86-809.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Argued April 7, 1987. Decided December 4, 1987.

*1269 Frederic W. Schwartz, Jr., with whom Robert Cadeaux, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellants.

Richard L. Fritts, with whom Joseph P. Clancy, Chevy Chase, Md., was on the brief, for appellee.

Before PRYOR,^[*] Chief Judge, NEWMAN, Associate Judge, and NEBEKER^[**], Associate Judge, Retired.

NEWMAN, Associate Judge:

In this case of first impression, we are asked to decide whether third parties suffering accidental injuries as the result of the acts of an intoxicated person state a cause of action against a tavern keeper where, as here, they allege (1) that the tavern keeper violated D.C.Code § 25-121(b) (1981) by serving a patron who was, or appeared to be, already intoxicated, and (2) that the statutory violation was a proximate cause of the injuries. We hold, on the basis of those cases in which we have recognized that violation of a statute designed to protect public safety supplies sufficient evidence on which to rest a claim for liability in tort, that Rong Yao Zhou and Xiu Juan Wu have stated a cause of action under District of Columbia law. We, therefore, vacate the order of the trial court granting Jennifer Mall Restaurant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remand for trial.

I.

Assuming as true the allegations as pleaded in the complaint, as we must for purposes of our review of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, Vicki Bagley Realty, Inc. v. Laufer, 482 A.2d 359, 364 (D.C.1984); McBryde v. Amoco Oil Co., 404 A.2d 200, 202 (D.C.1979), we are presented with the following set of facts. At approximately 11:30 p.m. on the evening of May 28, 1982, Rong Yao Zhou and Xiu Juan Wu, husband and wife, were seriously injured when they were struck by a car operated by a drunk driver on Connecticut Avenue in Chevy Chase, Maryland. The driver, Peter Joray, was returning from the Brittany Restaurant (trade name of appellee Jennifer Mall Restaurant, Inc.) in Washington, D.C. Employees of the restaurant had unlawfully served alcohol to Joray after he had become intoxicated and after his intoxication had become apparent. It was in this impaired condition that Joray *1270 entered his car and drove into Maryland, soon thereafter injuring Zhou and Wu.

On May 9, 1984, Zhou and Wu filed suit in Superior Court seeking 3.5 million dollars in damages from Jennifer Mall Restaurant, Inc. Jennifer Mall Restaurant moved under Super.Ct.Civ.R. 12(b) for judgment on the pleadings for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Judge Hannon granted the motion without opinion on May 6, 1986.

II.

We are confronted at the outset by the question of whether to apply District of Columbia law or Maryland law to a personal injury action arising from an accident occurring in Maryland, near the District of Columbia boundary, where the defendant's allegedly negligent conduct occurred in the District of Columbia by a corporation doing business here, and where plaintiffs are District of Columbia residents. We note that the choice of law issue has not been raised by the parties to this suit, who have assumed that District of Columbia law applies. Under Maryland law, a tavern keeper would not be liable in tort under the facts alleged in this case. See Felder v. Butler, 292 Md. 174, 438 A.2d 494 (1981).

The District of Columbia has long followed the "governmental interests analysis" approach to choice of law. Williams v. Williams, 390 A.2d 4, 5 (D.C. 1978); Gaither v. Myers, 131 U.S.App.D.C. 216, 222, 404 F.2d 216, 222 (1968); Tramontana v. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Area Rio Grandense, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 338, 341, 350 F.2d 468, 471 (1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 943, 86 S.Ct. 1195, 16 L.Ed.2d 206 (1966). Therefore, it is not the place of the injury that necessarily determines which law is to be applied. Rather, our jurisdiction, and others, see generally Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 302, 314 n.19, 316 n.22, 101 S.Ct. 633, 641 n.19, 642 n.22, 66 L.Ed.2d 521 (1981), have recognized that the place of the injury may be a mere "fortuity" in light of the fact that the relationship of the parties to the litigation is centered elsewhere. Kaiser-Georgetown Community Health Plan, Inc. v. Stutsman, 491 A.2d 502, 508 (D.C.1985) (applying District of Columbia law in medical malpractice action arising from medical services performed in Virginia upon Virginia resident, where services were benefit of plaintiff's employment in District of Columbia and defendant was District of Columbia corporation); Williams v. Rawlings Truck Line, Inc., 123 U.S.App.D.C. 121, 125, 357 F.2d 581, 585 (1965). An automobile or other vehicular accident occurring close to the border between two states presents a classic case of such a fortuity. See Gaither, supra; Allstate, supra, 449 U.S. at 314 & n.19, 101 S.Ct. at 641 n.19; Kilberg v. Northeast Airlines, Inc., 9 N.Y.2d 34, 211 N.Y.S.2d 133, 134-135, 172 N.E.2d 526, 527 (1961); Babcock v. Jackson, 12 N.Y.2d 473, 240 N.Y.S.2d 743, 750-51, 191 N.E.2d 279, 284 (1963); see also Estrada v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 488 A.2d 1359, 1364 (D.C.1985) (contrasting unpredictable situs of injury resulting from lack of due care concerning automobile with fixed situs when negligence involves care of land).

In applying governmental interests analysis to the facts of this case, we consider the interests, respectively, of Maryland and the District of Columbia. From the ruling of Maryland's highest court in Felder, supra, we understand that state to adhere to a policy of protecting negligent bar owners from civil liability, although they remain subject to the criminal penalties that attach for serving a person who is "visibly under the influence," MD. ANN. CODE art. 2B, § 118(a) (1957, 1979 Repl. Vol.), see id., 438 A.2d at 498. By contrast, a District of Columbia rule that would make tavern keepers answerable in tort, as well as under the criminal sanctions of D.C.Code § 25-121(b) (1981), would signify interests of this jurisdiction in compensating victims for resulting injuries, as well as in deterring harmful conduct.

The apparent clash of policies between Maryland and the District of Columbia presents a "false conflict" in the context of this case. A "false conflict" occurs when the policy of one state would be advanced by application of its law, while that of the other state would not be advanced *1271 by application of its law. In such a situation, the law of the interested jurisdiction prevails. Kaiser-Georgetown, supra, 491 A.2d at 509; Gaither, supra, 131 U.S. App.D.C. at 224, 404 F.2d at 224. Here, Maryland's interest in protecting tavern owners from tort liability is not implicated where the negligent restaurant is situated in the District of Columbia and the unlawful conduct occurred therein. Hence we apply the law of the interested jurisdiction, the District of Columbia.^[1]

Should there remain any question whether District of Columbia law applies in this case, Gaither, supra, furnishes the answer. Gaither is binding precedent^[2] that District of Columbia law applies when a cause of action is cognizable under District of Columbia tort law on the basis of a violation within the District of Columbia of a District of Columbia statute or regulation, even though the injury occurs nearby in Maryland where a similar statute has been interpreted by Maryland's highest court as not supporting civil liability. In Gaither, the District of Columbia regulation at issue required car owners to remove their keys from their vehicles when leaving them unattended. The negligent conduct occurred in the District of Columbia. The car was subsequently stolen and driven into Maryland, where it struck and injured plaintiff five miles from the District of Columbia border.

Finally, we observe that other jurisdictions that have confronted the question of tavern keeper liability arising in a multistate context have concluded that "the place where the liquor was unlawfully sold is of greater significance than the location of the accident because, when an intoxicated person is driving, the actual site of the crash is largely fortuitous," Pardey v. Boulevard Billiard Club, 518 A.2d 1349, 1352 (R.I.1986), and, accordingly, have applied the rule of liability of the state in which the vendor committed the unlawful act. See, e.g., Trapp v. 4-10 Investment Corp., 424 F.2d 1261, 1265 (8th Cir.1970); Bankford v. DeRock, 423 F.Supp. 602, 606 (N.D. Iowa 1976); Zucker v. Vogt, 200 F.Supp. 340, 343 (D.Conn.1961), aff'd, 329 F.2d 426, 428 n.2 (2d Cir.1964); Schmidt v. Driscoll Hotel, 249 Minn. 376, 82 N.W.2d 365, 368 (1957); Pardey, supra, 518 A.2d at 1352-53.

III.

Having determined that District of Columbia law governs the outcome of this case, we turn now to examine the substantive question of whether Zhou and Wu have stated a cause of action under the law of this jurisdiction. D.C.Code §§ 25-101 to 25-139 (1981), the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, regulates the sale of liquor in the District of Columbia. Section 25-121(b), in pertinent part, prohibits holders of licenses under § 25-111 from "permit[ing] on the licensed premises ... the consumption of any beverage by any intoxicated person, or any person of notoriously intemperate habits, or any person who appears to be intoxicated...."^[3] Violators are subject to fine *1272 or imprisonment, pursuant to D.C.Code § 25-132 (1981). We conclude that this statute, while not itself providing a cause of action against tavern keepers by injured third parties, supplies the standard of care by which tavern keepers' conduct is to be measured under the common law. Hence, when a plaintiff alleges that a tavern keeper has violated § 25-121(b), he alleges sufficient evidence of negligence that, when combined with an allegation of proximate causation, states a cause of action under District of Columbia law.

A.

While the question of tavern keeper liability is one of first impression before this court, it has been considered — in cases not binding upon us — by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, with inconsistent results. In Marusa v. District of Columbia, 157 U.S.App.D.C. 348, 484 F.2d 828 (1973), the D.C. Circuit was presented with a claim against a bar owner by a person shot by an allegedly intoxicated police officer following the officer's consumption of alcoholic beverages at the defendant's establishment. The court concluded that "[i]t is settled law in this court that `violation of an ordinance intended to promote safety' can give rise to a negligence action." Id. at 353, 484 F.2d at 833, citing Whetzel v. Jess Fisher Management Co., 108 U.S.App. D.C. 385, 389, 282 F.2d 943, 947 (1960), and that permitting a cause of action against the tavern keeper would not depart sharply from common law principles. Id., at 355, 484 F.2d at 835. The court had little trouble determining that "it seems obvious that regulations governing the sale of liquor are intended to enhance public safety"; that the statute imposes certain duties on the tavern owner; and that "in light of the purpose of the statute, ... those duties are owed to the community at large ... [including] third parties ... who might come into contact with inebriated persons." Id., at 354, 484 F.2d at 834 (footnotes omitted).

Five years after the D.C. Circuit's decision in Marusa, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (Hannon, J.) considered the civil liability of tavern owners in the context of a somewhat different pattern of events. In Clevenger v. District of Columbia, 106 Daily Wash.L.Rptr. 1561 (D.C.Super.Ct. July 11, 1978), the plaintiff was an intoxicated patron who sought to recover from the restaurant's owner for injuries allegedly incurred at the hands of police who had been called by the tavern keeper for assistance in removing the plaintiff from his premises.

Judge Hannon addressed the Clevenger case as if it raised two entirely separate questions: could plaintiff state a claim of negligence under the common law, or, alternatively, could he avail himself of an "implied cause of action" under D.C.Code § 25-121. He rejected Clevenger's complaint on both grounds. As for the common law ground, Judge Hannon concluded that "the concepts of proximate cause and reasonable forseeability become severely strained when ... the claimed injuries result from independent, intentional torts of third parties allegedly provoked by plaintiff's intoxication." Id. at 1565. As for the implied statutory claim, he drew two conclusions. First, he determined that the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act reflected a "congressional purpose of promoting morality and protecting public sensibilities" rather than of protecting public safety, which he believed was necessary to imply a cause of action under the statute. Id. at 1566. Second, in Judge Hannon's view, even assuming a statutory purpose of protecting public safety, the plaintiff in Clevenger was not among the class of persons that the statutory provision sought to protect, since Congress did not "evidence any intention to protect the safety of individuals who voluntarily drink to excess." Id. at 1567.

*1273 The question of tavern keeper liability revisited the D.C. Circuit in 1986. In Norwood v. Marrocco, 251 U.S.App.D.C. 2, 780 F.2d 110 (1986), the court effectively overruled Marusa, relying on the Superior Court's intervening Clevenger decision. Factually, Norwood was an amalgam of Marusa and Clevenger. As in Marusa, the plaintiff was a third party claiming damages for assault by an intoxicated patron of defendant's restaurant. However, as in Clevenger, plaintiff himself was intoxicated, although as the result of drinks served elsewhere.

The D.C. Circuit in Norwood focused exclusively on whether an "implied cause of action" could be found under D.C.Code § 25-121, and — concluding that it was "appropriate to refer to Clevenger for authoritative guidance" on the law of the District of Columbia — answered that question in the negative, 251 U.S.App.D.C. at 4-5, 780 F.2d at 112-13. Hence, Norwood ignored the question of whether the plaintiff had stated a negligence cause of action under common law principles.

B.

We reject the approach taken by Norwood and Clevenger, which, we believe, inappropriately isolates from the question of common law liability the significance of § 25-121(b) of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. By asking, with respect to that Act, only whether it creates an "implied cause of action," those cases ignore a fundamental principle of our common law and misapply theories that allocate roles between courts and legislatures. We endorse instead the view taken in Marusa. That view rests upon a long established principle of tort liability in the District of Columbia and one entirely consistent with the role of courts in giving content to the common law.

As we stated in Ceco Corp. v. Coleman, 441 A.2d 940 (D.C.1982):

The "general rule" in this jurisdiction is that "where a particular statutory or regulatory standard is enacted to protect persons in the plaintiff's position or to prevent the type of accident that occurred, and the plaintiff can establish his relationship to the statute, unexplained violation of that standard renders the defendant negligent as a matter of law."

Id. at 945, quoting Richardson v. Gregory, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 263, 266, 281 F.2d 626, 629 (1960) (added emphasis deleted). Hence, "[o]ccasionally ... legislative action fashions applicable standards of conduct which themselves fix the duty of care required[;] [f]ailure to meet these community standards stamps the offender `negligent,' i.e. failing to exercise that degree of care necessary in the particular situation." Richardson, supra, 108 U.S.App.D.C. at 266, 281 F.2d at 629. See also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 285 comment c at 21 (1965) ("Even where a legislative enactment contains no express provision that its violation shall result in tort liability, and no implication to that effect, the court may, and in certain types of cases customarily will, adopt the requirements of the enactment as the standard of conduct necessary to avoid liability for negligence."); W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, D. Owen, PROSSER & KEETON ON THE LAW OF TORTS § 36 at 220 (5th ed. 1984).

The rule that "[v]iolation of an ordinance intended to promote safety is negligence," Ross v. Hartman, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 217, 218, 139 F.2d 14, 15 (1943), cert. denied, 321 U.S. 790, 64 S.Ct. 790, 88 L.Ed. 1080 (1944), is rooted in the principle that failure to comply with a statutory requirement designed to protect public safety "is to fall short of the standard of diligence to which those who live in organized society are under a duty to conform," Martin v. Herzog, 228 N.Y. 164, 168, 126 N.E. 814, 815 (1920) (Cardozo, J.). Hence, this "axiom of tort law ... recognizes that the continued vitality of the common law, including the law of torts, depends upon its ability to reflect contemporary community values and ethics." Whetzel, supra, 108 U.S.App. D.C. at 388, 282 F.2d at 946.

Incorporating into the common law a standard of care set by a legislative enactment is distinct from determining that a cause of action arises, by implication, under a statute. The latter task is a matter of *1274 statutory construction, requiring the court to determine whether the legislature intended something other than that which it provided expressly. Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 688, 694, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 1953, 1956, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Courts appropriately refrain from making such inferences except under certain narrowly defined circumstances. See Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 2089, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975) (standards for implying private causes of action under federal statutes). By contrast, the decision to adopt from a penal statute a standard of care to be applied in determining common law negligence is "purely a judicial one, for the court to make." RESTATEMENT, supra, § 286 comment d at 26; Ontiveros v. Borak, 136 Ariz. 500, 510 & n. 3, 667 P.2d 200, 210 & n. 3 (1983) (en banc). Defining the contours of common law liability, including the duty that may have been breached in a negligence case, is a task traditionally within the purview of the judicial branch. Kelly v. Gwinnell, 96 N.J. 538, 552-53, 555-57, 476 A.2d 1219, 1226, 1228 (1984); El Chico Corp. v. Poole, 732 S.W.2d 306, 314-15 (Tex.1987).

Our courts have recognized that a variety of statutes have a public safety purpose justifying the application of the rule that their violation constitutes negligence. In Ross, supra, and Gaither, supra, this jurisdiction held that violation of an ordinance prohibiting vehicle owners from leaving their automobiles unattended with the key in the ignition constituted negligence per se in a personal injury action against the car owner by a third party injured by the stolen vehicle following its theft. In the court's view, "[t]he evident purpose of requiring motor vehicles to be locked is not to prevent theft for the sake of owners or the police, but to promote the safety of the public in the streets." Ross, supra, 78 U.S.App.D.C. at 218, 139 F.2d at 15. Similar conclusions have been drawn with respect to building codes, see H.R.H. Construction Co. v. Conroy, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 7, 9, 411 F.2d 722, 724 (1969) (injury to construction worker); Elliott v. Michael James, Inc., 182 U.S.App.D.C. 138, 143, 559 F.2d 759, 764 (1977) (stabbing of restaurant employee; escape prevented because doors unlawfully locked on inside); industrial safety board regulations, see Bowman v. Redding & Co., 145 U.S.App.D.C. 294, 301-02, 449 F.2d 956, 963-64 (1971); traffic regulations, see Leiken v. Wilson, 445 A.2d 993, 1002 (D.C.1982); Bauman v. Sragow, 308 A.2d 243, 244 (D.C.1973); Danzansky v. Zimbolist, 70 App.D.C. 234, 236, 105 F.2d 457, 459 (1939); housing codes, see Whetzel, supra, 108 U.S.App.D.C. at 392, 282 F.2d at 950 (injury to tenant by falling ceiling; landlord's violation of code by renting habitation not "in repair" sufficient to send claim of negligence to jury); and the statute making it criminal for a police officer to use excessive force, see District of Columbia v. White, 442 A.2d 159, 163-64 (D.C.1982) (violation supports claim of negligence in wrongful death action).

In addition, even where the court does not preceive a public safety purpose in the legislative enactment, the statutory violation may be admitted as evidence of negligence, although it does not constitute negligence per se. Stevens v. Hall, 391 A.2d 792, 795-96 (D.C.1978); Whetzel, supra, 108 U.S.App.D.C. at 389, 282 F.2d at 947; Peigh v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 92 U.S.App.D.C. 198, 200-01, 204 F.2d 391, 393-94 (1953). Compare Standardized Civil Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia, No. 5-8 (1981) ("If you find that a regulation ... intended to protect the public has been violated and thereby caused injuries which the regulation ... intended to avoid, you must find negligence....") (emphasis added) with No. 5-9 ("The violation of a regulation ..., which is a cause of a plaintiff's ... injuries is evidence of negligence ... to be considered by you.") (emphasis added). Finally, where the statute has a public safety purpose, but the defendant has put forth evidence excusing its violation, that violation may also be considered evidence of negligence rather than negligence per se. Leiken, supra, 445 A.2d at 1002-03; Ceco, supra, 441 A.2d at 945; Hecht Co. v. McLaughlin, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 382, 385-86, 214 F.2d 212, 215-16 (1954) (although department store door arguably was in violation *1275 of building code, its installation had been approved by Department of Building Inspection).^[4]

C.

We have no difficulty concluding that § 25-121(b) of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act has a public safety purpose, and that its unexcused violation therefore constitutes negligence per se, i.e., breach of the duty of care that tavern keepers owe to the public. Thus, when members of the public allege, as plaintiffs have here, that the tavern keeper's negligence was the legal cause of their injuries, they state a cause of action under District of Columbia law.

In Clevenger, Judge Hannon, in considering the implied statutory claim, concluded that § 25-121(b) did not have a public safety purpose, but rather a "purpose of promoting morality and protecting public sensibilities." 106 Daily Wash.L.Rptr. at 1566. We believe that this view is shortsighted, at best. For even if the legislation may be accurately regarded in some respects as post-Prohibition "morals" legislation — desigend to contain that which Prohibition had failed in attempting to ban altogether —, the "moral" imperative to control the distribution and consumption of alcohol cannot be said to have existed separate and apart from a recognition that excessive consumption presents serious threats to public safety.

Congress in 1934 clearly was aware of the public safety hazards associated with alcohol abuse, and incorporated safety concerns as an integral part of its comprehensive scheme to regulate the sale and use of alcohol in the nation's capital. Senator Sheppard, who supported Prohibition, and opposed the legislation regulating the reintroduction of alcohol in the District of Columbia, was certain that among the many evils associated with the substance was that it "multiplies the hazards on our streets and highways, imperiling the lives of motorists, pedestrians, and little children." 78 CONG.REC. 698 (1934). A majority of the Congress apparently shared Senator Sheppard's safety concern, when, in enacting the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, it included, alongside § 25-121(b), § 25-127 which prohibits the operation of a locomotive, streetcar, elevator, watercraft, or horse-drawn vehicle by an intoxicated person. 48 Stat. 333, ch. 4 (1934). Section 25-127, by its terms, also left intact another pre-existing statute, 46 Stat. 1428 ch. 317 (1931), now codified at § 40-716, prohibiting driving of motor vehicles while intoxicated.

Congress understood that it was regulating a dangerous substance, and that the potential for injury and accident associated with intoxication is amplified when the intoxicated person is placed at the controls of a mechanical device, particularly one involved in transportation. When, as alleged in this case, an intoxicated customer who has been served liquor in violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act crashes his car shortly after departing from def