Martin v. Herzog - Rational The Court of Appeals agree that...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Martin v. Herzog 228 N.Y. 164 (1920) Fact: Operative Facts: The defendant got into an auto accident with the plaintiff, on a sharp turn at night, when the cars were going in opposite directions. The defendant didn’t have his lights on, and was driving by peering into the shadows. In trial court, the jury was instructed not to view the fact that the defendant didn’t have his lights on as the prima facie case. Issue: Whether the fact that the defendant didn’t have his lights on, should be the prima facie for the case of negligence. Rule: Negligence is when a person does not use ordinary duty of care, and place others at a higher than socially acceptable standard of risk
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Rational: The Court of Appeals agree that the face that the defendant, by statutory law, was required to have his lights on at the hour of day, and that the accident occurred, because in part, the fact that he did not have his lights on to warn other drivers, allows that the case have the fact that his had his lights off as the prima facie fact. Holding: Broad: Narrow: When a driver does not follow statutory law, and that law is used as a safety measure to prevent accidence, and an accident occurs where the law would have helped prevent, then the driver can be held liable for negligent because he did not follow that law. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences:...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/20/2011 for the course TORTS 131 taught by Professor Keller during the Fall '11 term at Western State Colorado University .

Ask a homework question - tutors are online