Connection lost
Server error
Martin v. Herzog Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A man driving a buggy without lights, in violation of a statute, was killed in a collision. The court held that the unexcused statutory violation constituted negligence per se, not merely evidence of negligence for the jury to weigh.
Legal Significance: This case established the doctrine of negligence per se in New York, holding that an unexcused violation of a safety statute constitutes negligence as a matter of law, rather than just evidence of negligence.
Martin v. Herzog Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The plaintiff’s husband, Martin, was killed when the buggy he was driving at night collided with an automobile driven by the defendant, Herzog. The collision occurred on a curve in the highway. A state statute required vehicles such as buggies to display lights from one hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise. It was undisputed that Martin’s buggy had no lights at the time of the accident. The defendant alleged he was blinded by the darkness of the curve and did not see the buggy. The plaintiff alleged the defendant was negligent for driving on the wrong side of the road. The trial judge instructed the jury that Martin’s violation of the lighting statute was not negligence in itself, but could be considered as some evidence of contributory negligence. The defendant had requested an instruction that the violation was “prima facie evidence of contributory negligence,” which was refused. The jury found for the plaintiff, but the Appellate Division reversed due to the erroneous jury instruction.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the unexcused violation of a safety statute designed to protect other travelers on a highway constitute negligence as a matter of law?
Yes. The unexcused violation of the statute requiring lights on the buggy Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea comm
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the unexcused violation of a safety statute designed to protect other travelers on a highway constitute negligence as a matter of law?
Conclusion
This case is a foundational authority for the doctrine of negligence per Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut e
Legal Rule
The unexcused omission of a statutory safeguard intended for the protection of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna al
Legal Analysis
Writing for the majority, Judge Cardozo articulated a clear standard for the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est l
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The unexcused violation of a safety statute constitutes negligence per se