PROVING BREACH: VIOLATION OF STATUTE

Question 1

MARTIN V. HERZOG (BUGGY CASE)

Answer 1

Plaintiff was driving a buggy with no lights on, and defendant was driving a car in the middle of the land, and plaintiff was killed in the crash – statute provides buggies must have lights, and plaintiff was engaged in contributory negligence violating statute, so defendant was not liable

Question 2

THOMAS V. MCDONALD (WARNING LIGHTS CASE)

Answer 2

Defendant stalled his truck on highway and failed to put out warning lights, plaintiff crashed into truck and was injured – defendant violated the statute that requires warning lights to be put out in a reasonable time because defendant did not own warning lights, so defendant liable

Question 3

WAWANESA MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. V. MATLOCK (CIGARETTE CASE)

Answer 3

Defendant violated statute and gave cigarette to minor, which ended up resulting in a fire and damage – purpose of the statute wasn’t fire prevention, so violation of this statute isn’t relevant to the harm that occurred (purpose of statute)

Question 4

SIKORA V. WENZEL (CONDO CASE)

Answer 4

Plaintiff injured when deck fell off condo building owned by defendant because building wasn’t safe – defendant was not liable even though he was in violation of the statute because he had no knowledge or notice of violation when he bought the condo