Business LawBusiness Law

Team Members: Bui Nhu QuynhNguyen H. Huyen TrangNguyen Ha PhuongPham Bich PhuongVu Quynh TrangVu Thuy Hang

CONTENTCONTENT

1. FACT2. ISSUE3. RULE4. APPLICATION5. CONCLUSION

MARTIN V. MARTIN V. HERZOGHERZOG

FACTFACT• August 21, 1915, the weather was dusk and shortly

view• Martin’s family were driving without headlights• Herzog were driving in the wrong side of the roadThey got an accident, and causing Martin died Martin’s wife sued Herzog for:

+ Negligence with personal injuries + Charged a defendant with not keeping to the right side when driving on the street

ISSUEISSUE

• Does a jury have the power to relax the duty that one traveler on the highway owes under a statute to another on the same highway?

• Is negligent conduct actionable by itself unless there is a showing that such conduct was the cause of the injuries incurred?

RULE OF LAWRULE OF LAW

• Negligence per se is the kind of an action or a failure to act in or of itself. Negligence per se occurs when an individual breaks a statute or an ordinance providing for a criminal penalty and that breach causes another to be injured

RULE OF LAWRULE OF LAW• The plaintiff must prove the following four criteria to

establish negligence per se: Both plaintiff and defendant break the rule of safety

in transportation law The law was designed to provide public safety The defendant’s breach of the safety law caused the

type of injury that the law was aim to prevent The plaintiff was placed in danger as a result or is a

member of the group of people that the safety law was created to protect

APPLICATIONAPPLICATION• These unreasoned mistakes of the statutory signals are

more than with some evidences of negligence• The uncaused offense of mission in accordance with the

law is negligence for every se• When protected method follows regulations of law for

another person’s profit to overlook, to be intentionally or unnoticeable, he can insure his life or limb => suitable following mission

=> A jury does not have force to loosen the task that one traveler on the highway owes under a stature to another the same highway

APPLICATIONAPPLICATION

• Some relaxation there has also been where the safeguard is prescribed by the local state law, and not by the statue

• The police regulation of boards and councils and other subordinates create the rights of action out of the specific penalties imposed, and the courts have been unwillingly to hold that

APPLICATIONAPPLICATION

The court thinks that the violation of a statue is negligence and the act which break the law the same with ordinance is only evidence of negligence

• Defendant who drove the car without lights in highway will not to pay damages for his mistake, to except the absence of the lights in cases is the cause of the disaster or the accident

APPLICATIONAPPLICATION• To say that conduct is negligence is not to say that it

is always contributory negligence• The failure Martin to use his headlights in

accordance with the law is negligent conduct• The evidence of a collision occurring more than one

hour after sundown between a car and an unseen buggy, proceeding without lights is evidence from which a causal connection may be inferred between the collision and the lack of signals

CONCLUSIONCONCLUSION

• Plaintiff wrongfully violated a statute intended for the protection of Defendant.

• Plaintiff is negligent per se. The only thing left to determine is causation and injury. If Plaintiff’s failure to light the buggy was the cause of the accident, then it is contributory negligence.

Presentation TitleYour company information

THANKS FOR THANKS FOR YOUR YOUR

LISTENINGLISTENING