Martin v. Herzog
Facts
Plaintiff and her husband were riding in a buggy at night when defendant's automobile, coming from the opposite direction around a curve, struck them. The husband was driving without the lights required by statute, while plaintiff claimed defendant was negligent for not keeping to the right of the center of the highway. There was no evidence that defendant was speeding or that his car was defective. The trial court instructed the jury that the absence of lights was merely a fact to consider and was not negligence in itself.
Issue
When a traveler violates a highway safety statute by driving at night without required lights, may the jury treat that omission as merely some evidence of negligence, or is it negligence in itself? If it is negligence in itself, what effect does it have on contributory negligence where the lack of lights may have contributed to the collision?
Rule
The unexcused omission of a safeguard required by statute for the protection of others is negligence in itself. But statutory negligence constitutes contributory negligence only if the violation was at least a contributing cause of the accident; where a nighttime collision occurs with an unseen unlighted vehicle, the violation is prima facie sufficient to support a finding of contributory negligence unless its causal force is overcome by other proof.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
If the trial judge instructs the jury that Nora's failure to carry the required lantern is merely one fact they may weigh in deciding negligence, which is the best assessment?