MARTIN V. HERZOG case brief

 MARTIN V. HERZOG

• plaintiff claims statutory violation – D was driving on wrong side of the road

• D says, yes I was wrong, BUT, P didn’t have his lights on.

• another statutory provision says lights should be on at night

• trial court – absence of light can be considered as “some evidence” that P was contributorily negligent, but not full evidence

• Appeals Court overrules trial court – Cardozo says the quintessential definition of negligence is the violation of the statute.

• community standard IS the statute – people should drive with their lights on

• statutory purpose is safety – prevent accidents; violation of the statute = negligence per se (elements are covered)

• two excuses – unavoidable accident; situation in which not following the statute would be better than following it