Martin v. Herzog
Citation: 228 N.Y. 164 (1920)
Facts
Martin was killed when his buggy collided with Herzog’s automobile on a curve. Martin’s buggy was not using headlights, in violation of a statute. Herzog was driving over the center line, also in violation of law. The jury found for plaintiff’s estate.
Issue
(1) Does violation of a statute (failure to use headlights) constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law? (2) Does the statutory violation’s negligence per se cut off any contributory negligence finding?
Holding
Yes to both. Violation of a statutory safety standard is negligence per se — the jury has no discretion to find otherwise. Both parties were negligent per se: Herzog for driving over the center line, and Martin for failing to use headlights. The trial court erred in allowing the jury to treat Martin’s violation as optional evidence of fault.
Rule
Negligence per se (contributory): When a safety statute is violated and the plaintiff’s violation is within the class of risks the statute was designed to prevent, the violation is contributory negligence per se — not merely evidence of negligence. Cardozo wrote: “To omit, willfully or heedlessly, the safeguards prescribed by law for the benefit of another that he may be preserved in life or limb, is to fall short of the standard of diligence to which those who live in organized society are under a duty to conform.”
Significance
- Classic Cardozo opinion on negligence per se applied to contributory negligence
- Establishes that statutory violations by plaintiffs (not just defendants) can be negligence per se
- Shows the symmetry: if defendant’s statutory violation is negligence per se, plaintiff’s statutory violation is contributory negligence per se
- Distinguished from the “but for” causation requirement: the statute must be designed to prevent the type of harm that occurred