Case 5 Martin v. Herzog, 228 N.Y. 164, 126 N.E. 814 (1920).

1. Case 5 Martin v. Herzog, • 228 N.Y. 164, 126 N.E. 814 (1920). 蒋楠 廖小其

2. Case Report Facts Procedure History Issue(s) Rule(s) Plaintiff Assertion Defendant Arguments • Reasoning • Conclusion • (9) Any other contents the reporter thinks is necessary

3. Facts & Procedure History

4. Facts & Procedure History

5. The plaintiff, as administratrix, alleged that the death of her husband was caused solely by the negligence of defendant in operating, driving, and running the automobile at a high, unlawful, excessive, and unsafe rate of speed, in failing to blow a horn or give any warning or signal of the approach of said automobile, and in operating, driving, and riding said automobile at said time and place upon his left-hand or wrongful side of said road or highway. Plaintiff Assertion

6. Defendant admitted that he was operating the automobile, put in issue the remaining allegations of the complaint, and affirmatively alleged that any injury to plaintiff's intestate was caused by his contributory negligence. Further, the defendant held that the absence of light on the plaintiff’s vehicle is ‘prima facie evidence of contributory negligence.’ Defendant Arguments

7. Two undisputed facts 1、The defendant ,driving his car while rounding the curve, diverged from the center of the road 2、There is an absence of light on the wagon which operated by plaintiff’s husband. Facts determined by court

8. The court determines that the defendant may have been negligent in swerving from the center of the road; but he did not run into the buggy purposely, nor was he driving while intoxicated, nor was he going at such a reckless speed that warning would of necessity have been futile. Nothing of the kind is shown. Under this circumstances, court charged that divergence from the center of road did not necessary cause the accident. Facts determined by court

9. Therefore the first issue which is considered as main cause of the collision is denied or eliminated by court. The court holds that the collision was caused by lack of vision i.e. The defendant should have seen the appearance of wagon, but somehow, he fails to. Facts determined by court

10. The court further points out that lack of vision is a result of absence of light on wagon. The display of light is safeguard measure or obligation prescribed in law aiming to protect travelers on highway. Facts determined by court

11. Whether the omission of a safeguard prescribed by statute is merely some evidence of negligence or negligence in itself? Issue

12. Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965) • §288B Effect of Violation • (1) The unexcused violation of a legislative enactment or an administrative regulation which is adopted by the court as defining the standard of conduct of a reasonable man, is negligence in itself. • (2) The unexcused violation of an enactment or regulation which is not so adopted may be relevant evidence bearing on the issue of negligent conduct. Rule

13. The functions of lights on vehicles The safeguard measures prescribed in Laws Causal connection and negligence The causal connection between collision and lack of signals. Failure on displaying light on plaintiff’s wagon causes the lack of vision reasoning

14. We think the unexcused omission of the statutory signals is more than some evidence of negligence. It is negligence in itself. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, and judgment absolute directed on the stipulation in favor of the defendant Conclusion

15. Q&A

16. THANKS April Theo April Theo