Martin v. Herzog

126 N.E. 814 · New York Court of Appeals · 1920

Facts

Plaintiff's husband was killed when his unlit buggy collided with defendant's automobile at night on a curve. The defendant was allegedly not keeping to the right, and the plaintiff's husband was driving without statutorily required lights. The trial court instructed the jury that the absence of lights was merely "some evidence of negligence," leading to a verdict for the plaintiff.

Issue

Did the trial court err by instructing the jury that the unexcused omission of statutorily required lights was merely "some evidence of negligence" rather than "negligence in itself" or "prima facie evidence of contributory negligence"?

Holding

Yes, the trial court erred. The Appellate Division's order for a new trial is affirmed because the jury should have been instructed that the unexcused absence of statutory lights constituted negligence in itself and prima facie evidence of contributory negligence.

Rule

The unexcused omission of a statutory duty, intended for the protection of others, constitutes "negligence in itself" (negligence per se). Such a violation, if causally connected to the injury, is "prima facie evidence of contributory negligence," which the offender must overcome with evidence.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-01-31. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.