A mother sent her daughter, who had a severe nut allergy, to a cooking camp that focused on teaching young children how to cook in healthy and fun ways. To protect children with food allergies, a local ordinance required that no food ingredients at any camp for children would contain soy or nuts. On the day the daughter went to the camp, the campers were going to learn how to make a shrimp stir-fry. The camp counselor on duty forgot about the ordinance and added soy sauce to the stir-fry. Later that day, the daughter was rushed to the hospital for severe abdominal pain. At the hospital, it was discovered that the bottle of soy sauce had been contaminated with an unusual strain of bacteria and the daughter had developed a bacterial infection. However, the daughter showed no signs of an allergic reaction to the soy sauce.
If the mother sues the camp counselor under a theory of negligence per se for violation of the statute, is she likely to prevail?
A. No, because her daughter did not suffer harm that was intended to be prevented by the ordinance.
B. No, because her daughter was not in the class of people intended to be protected by the ordinance.
C. Yes, because the camp counselor put soy sauce into the food in violation of the ordinance.
D. Yes, because the daughter was within the class of people intended to be protected by the ordinance.
