Martin v. Herzog
126 N.E. 814 (1920) (1920)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The unexcused violation of a statutory standard of care is not merely evidence of negligence, but is negligence in itself (negligence per se).
Facts:
- Plaintiff and her husband, Mr. Martin, were driving a horse-drawn buggy at night on a public highway.
- The buggy did not have its lights on, which was a violation of the state Highway Law.
- The defendant, Herzog, was operating an automobile traveling in the opposite direction.
- At a curve in the highway, Herzog's automobile crossed the center line.
- Herzog's vehicle collided with the buggy.
- Mr. Martin was thrown from the buggy and killed as a result of the collision.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, as administratrix for her deceased husband's estate, sued the defendant in a New York trial court for wrongful death.
- A jury found in favor of the plaintiff.
- The defendant appealed the judgment to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's judgment and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge gave an erroneous instruction to the jury.
- The plaintiff appealed the Appellate Division's decision to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the unexcused violation of a statute requiring vehicles to display lights at night constitute negligence in itself?
Opinions:
Majority - Cardozo, J.
Yes. The unexcused omission of statutory signals is negligence in itself. A statute designed for the safety and protection of other travelers on the highway establishes a definitive standard of diligence. To willfully or heedlessly omit the safeguards prescribed by law is to fall short of the duty to conform to the standard of care owed to others in an organized society. While violation of a local ordinance may only be evidence of negligence, the violation of a statute is treated as negligence per se. However, this finding of negligence does not automatically impose liability; there must also be a causal connection between the statutory violation and the injury. The failure to use lights is prima facie evidence of contributory negligence, which is sufficient to sustain a finding of fault unless the plaintiff can prove that the omission was not a contributing cause of the disaster.
Dissenting - Hogan, J.
No. The trial court's instructions were sufficient, and the key issue was causation, which the jury properly decided. The defendant was driving on the wrong side of a well-lit road, and the jury found this to be the cause of the accident. The absence of a light on the buggy was not the proximate cause of the collision; the defendant's own negligence was. The majority's focus on the statutory violation as negligence per se is an abstract proposition that improperly distracts from the essential element of causal connection. The jury correctly determined that even if the buggy had no lights, the accident would not have happened if the defendant had been on the correct side of the road and driving attentively.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision that firmly establishes the doctrine of negligence per se in New York jurisprudence. It creates a clear distinction between the legal effect of violating a statute versus a local ordinance, holding that the former constitutes negligence in itself while the latter is merely evidence of negligence. This simplifies the jury's role by removing its discretion to determine whether a statutory violation is a breach of duty, leaving only the question of causation. The decision reinforces the idea that legislative bodies can set binding standards of care, and courts will enforce them by treating unexcused violations as conclusive proof of negligence.
Unlock the full brief for Martin v. Herzog