Martin v. Herzog – Case Brief
Martin v. Herzog, 228 N.Y. 164, 126 N.E. 814 (1920).
Facts: Martin (P) was killed in a collision between his buggy and Herzog’s (D) car. Martin was driving at night without lights and Herzog (D) was driving on the wrong side of the road. Herzog claimed that Martin’s failure to use headlights constituted contributory negligence and barred him from recovery.
At trial the judge instructed the jury that it could consider whether Martin had been contributorily negligent in failing to have a light upon the buggy as provided by law, but that not having a light did not necessarily make him negligent. The jury was instructed that they were at liberty to treat the omission of the lights either as innocent or as contributorily negligent. The jury found in favor of P. The Appellate Division reversed and P appealed.
Issue: May a jury relax the duty that one traveler owes under a statute to another? Is negligent conduct actionable by itself, or must there also be a showing that the negligence was the cause of the injuries incurred?
Holding and Rule: The unexcused violation of a statutory duty is negligence per se and a jury may not relax the duty that one traveler owes under a statute to another. Negligent conduct is not actionable by itself unless there is a showing that such conduct was the cause of the injuries incurred.
The rule is applied less rigidly where the other party was not a member of the class for whose protection the safeguard was intended, and where the safeguard is by local ordinance rather than by statute.
A defendant who travels without lights is not to pay damages for his fault unless the absence of lights is the cause of the accident. To say that conduct is negligence is not to say that it is always contributory negligence. To impose liability there still must be a showing of cause, proximate cause and damages.
The court held that evidence of a collision at night between a car and an unseen buggy proceeding without lights is evidence from which a causal connection may be inferred between the collision and the lack of lights. If no other evidence is offered to break the causal connection, then there is contributory negligence.
Disposition: Affirmed.
Notes: Where a party has been negligent per se, in order for that party to be liable there also must be causation and damages. Negligence alone is not enough.