Clara E. Brown, Respondent v. Francis T. Shyne, Appellant

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s judgment and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge’s instruction that a violation of the Public Health Law could be considered evidence of negligence was erroneous; such statutory violation is not negligence per se unless it is the proximate cause of the injury and the statute was intended to prevent that type of injury. The dissent argued the opposite, contending the violation should be treated as sufficient evidence of negligence and the judgment should be affirmed (Justice Crane, dissenting, would have affirmed the judgment).