Under the guise of purchasing a used Mercedes Benz from L. P. Evans Motors of West Palm Beach (Evans), two thieves were given a test drive at which time they overpowered the sales representative and stole the vehicle. Later, a third party shipped the same vehicle1 to Haiti aboard the defendant’s shipping line. Evans, joined by his insurer, commenced the present action on the theory that the defendant’s failure to obtain a certificate of right of possession as required by Section 319.36, Florida Statutes (1979) imposed liability upon the shipping line for the loss of the vehicle. From an adverse summary judgment, the shipping line appeals. We affirm.

Unquestionably, Section 319.36, supra, imposed a duty upon the defendant to obtain a certificate of possession of title. Because we find that the statute was enacted to protect owners of vehicles from the loss of their goods,2 we hold that it was negligence per se not to abide by the statute. See deJesus v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 281 So.2d 198 (Fla. 1973). We reject the defendant’s argument that its activities were only a remote cause of the plaintiff’s damages. To the contrary, we *780find that the defendant’s acts directly and in natural and continuous sequence produced the damage incurred by the plaintiff. See Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Civil) 5.1(a). The duty imposed on the defendant by Section 319.36, supra, presupposes a theft of the vehicle prior to its presentment at the shipping line. It cannot be argued then, that that very theft precluded the defendant’s liability.

Consequently, we find that the summary judgment must be affirmed.