Martin v. Herzog
126 N.E. 814 · New York Court of Appeals · 1920
Facts
Plaintiff's husband was killed when his buggy, driven without lights at night, was struck by defendant's automobile on a curve. The jury found the defendant negligent and the plaintiff's husband blameless, but the Appellate Division reversed and ordered a new trial. The trial court had instructed the jury that the absence of lights was merely 'some evidence of negligence' for their consideration.
Issue
Did the trial court err by instructing the jury that the unexcused omission of a statutory safety signal (driving without lights) was merely 'some evidence of negligence' rather than negligence in itself or prima facie evidence of contributory negligence?
Holding
The Appellate Division's order for a new trial is affirmed because the trial court erred. The jury should have been instructed that the unexcused omission of statutory lights was negligence in itself, and if causally connected to the accident, constituted prima facie evidence of contributory negligence.
Rule
The unexcused omission of a statutory signal or safeguard, intended for the protection of others, constitutes negligence in itself. If this statutory violation is a contributing cause of an injury, it is prima facie evidence of contributory negligence, which the jury must consider unless its probative force is overcome.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.