Martin v. Herzog

COA NY - 1920

Facts:
P and her husband were driving at night in a buggy with the lights off.
They were hit by the D's car while rounding the curve. P's husband was killed in the accident.
P sued D in negligence. D argued that P's conduct amounted to contributory negligence since there is a statute that requires vehicles to use lights.

Procedural History:
Trial court found for P.
Appellate court reversed, remanded.
COA NY affirmed.

Issues:
Can a negligence per se argument be utilized by D in order to prove P was negligent and avoid liability?
Should the violation of a statute be determined by the court to be negligence per se or should that issue be left to the jury?

Holding/Rule:
A negligence per se argument can be utilized by D in order to prove P was negligent and avoid liability.
The violation of a statute should be determined by the court to be negligence per se. It is not a jury issue.

Reasoning:
The failure to use lights was definitely a negligent act.
The trial court instructed the jury to treat the P's behavior as culpable or as innocent, any way that they chose.
Jurors should not have the discretion to relax the duty that the law imposes on individuals.
There is a causal connection between the violation of the statute and the harm suffered, so the Ps were liable for contributory negligence in this matter.

Dissent:
None.

Notes:
In proving contributory negligence as a defense, a D must show that the violation of the statute proximately caused the injury.