Platz v. . the City of Cohoes
89 N.Y. 219, 1882 N.Y. LEXIS 209 (1882)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff's violation of a penal statute does not bar recovery for injuries caused by a defendant's negligence, unless the plaintiff's disobedience directly contributed to the accident or the statute created a specific right in the defendant which was violated.
Facts:
- The City of Cohoes made an excavation in one of its public streets.
- The City of Cohoes left the excavated earth in the street, forming a pile.
- While Mrs. Platz was riding in a carriage with her husband, the carriage was upset by the pile of earth.
- The upset occurred without carelessness on the part of Mrs. Platz or her husband.
- Mrs. Platz sustained injuries as a result of the accident.
- The accident happened on a Sunday.
- Mrs. Platz was traveling on Sunday for purposes not identified as necessity or charity, thus violating a statute relating to the 'observance of Sunday'.
Procedural Posture:
- Mrs. Platz (plaintiff) obtained a judgment in her favor against the City of Cohoes (defendant) in a lower court (implied from the appeal).
- The City of Cohoes (appellant) appealed this judgment to the New York Court of Appeals.
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 a plaintiff's violation of a Sunday law, prohibiting travel on that day, bar them from recovering damages for injuries caused by a defendant's negligence in maintaining a public street, when the violation did not directly contribute to the injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Danforth, J.
No, a plaintiff's violation of a Sunday law does not bar them from recovering damages for injuries caused by a defendant's negligence if the violation did not directly contribute to the injury. The statute prohibiting Sunday travel imposed a specific, limited penalty (a one-dollar forfeiture or short imprisonment) for its violation. The courts are required to construe penal statutes strictly and should not impose additional penalties, such as forfeiture of the right to indemnity for injuries, beyond what the legislature prescribed. The policy of the Sunday statute is the promotion of public order, not to provide an advantage or defense to negligent individuals or corporations. For a statutory violation to bar recovery, it must appear that the disobedience directly contributed to the accident, or that the statute created a right in the defendant that was infringed. In this case, the act of traveling on Sunday was not the immediate cause of the accident; rather, the defendant's negligent maintenance of the street was. The common law protects individuals from wrongdoers, and the plaintiff's presence on the street, though contrary to a penal statute, did not make her a trespasser or remove her from the protection of the law against negligence.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the limited role of statutory violations in contributory negligence defenses. It establishes that merely being in violation of a penal statute at the time of an injury does not automatically preclude recovery for a defendant's negligence. The court emphatically rejected the idea of adding extra-statutory penalties to legislative enactments, emphasizing judicial restraint. This principle limits the scope of contributory negligence by requiring a direct causal link between the plaintiff's violation and the injury, preventing tortfeasors from escaping liability for their own negligence based on unrelated or non-causal statutory infractions by the victim. It reinforces the idea that statutory purpose matters—laws for public order do not necessarily create individual tort defenses.
