Little v. Hackett

• Decision Date: 04 January 1886
• Citation: 29 L.Ed. 652,6 S.Ct. 391,116 U.S. 366
• Parties: LITTLE, Receiver, etc., v. HACKETT. Filed
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

6 S.Ct. 391

116 U.S. 366

29 L.Ed. 652

LITTLE, Receiver, etc., v. HACKETT.

Filed January 4, 1886.

On the twenty-eighth of June, 1879, the plaintiff below, defendant in error here, was injured by the collision of a train of the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey with a carriage in which he was riding; and this action is brought to recover damages for the injury. The railroad was at the time operated by a receiver of the company appointed by order of the court of chancery of New Jersey. In consequence of his death, the defendant was appointed by the court his successor, and subjected to his liabilities; and this action is prosecuted by its permission.

It appears from the record that on the day mentioned the plaintiff went on an excursion from Germantown, in Pennsylvania, to Long Branch, in New Jersey, with an association of which he was a member. While there, he dined at the West End Hotel, and after dinner hired a public hackney-coach from a stand near the hotel, and, taking a companion with him, was driven along the beach to the pier, where a steam-boat was landing its passengers, and thence to the railroad station at the West End. On arriving there he found he had time, before the train left, to take a further drive, and directed the driver to go through Hoey's Park, which was near by. The driver thereupon turned the horses to go to the park, and, in crossing the railroad track near the station for that purpose, the carriage was struck by the engine of a passing train, and the plaintiff received the injury complained of. The carriage belonged to a livery-stable keeper, and was driven by a person in his employ. It was an open carriage, with the seat of the driver about two feet above that of the persons riding. The evidence tended to show that the accident was the result of the concurring negligence of the managers of the train and of the driver of the carriage,—of the managers of the train in not giving the usual signals of its approach by ringing a bell and blowing a whistle, and in not having a flagman on duty; and of the driver of the carriage in turning the horses upon the track without proper precautions to ascertain whether the train was coming. The defense was contributory negligence in driving on the track; the defendant contending that the driver was thereby negligent, and that his negligence was to be imputed to the plaintiff. The court left the question of the negligence of the parties in charge of the train, and of the driver of the carriage, to the jury, and no exception is taken to its instructions on this head. But with reference to the alleged imputed negligence of the plaintiff, assuming that the driver was negligent, the court instructed them that unless the plaintiff interfered with the driver, and controlled the manner of his driving, his negligence could not be imputed to the plaintiff.

'I charge you,' said the presiding judge to them, 'that where a person hires a public hack or carriage, which at the time is in the care of the driver, for the purpose of temporary conveyance, and gives directions to the driver as to the place or places to which he desires to be conveyed, and gives no special directions as to his mode or manner of driving, he is not responsible for the acts or negligence of the driver, and if he sustains an injury by means of a collision between his carriage and another, he may recover damages from any party by whose fault or negligence the injury occurred, whether that of the driver of the carrage in which he is riding, or of the driver of the other. He may sue either. The negligence of the driver of the carriage in which he is riding will not prevent him from recovering damages against the other driver, if he was negligent at the same time.' 'The passenger in the carriage may direct the driver where to go,—to such a park or to such a place that he wishes to see. So far the driver is under his direction; but my charge to you is that, as to the manner of driving, the driver of the carriage or the owner of the hack—in other words, he who has charge of it, and has charge of the team—is the person responsible for the manner of driving, and the passenger is not responsible for that, unless he interferes and controls the matter by his own commands or requirements. If the passenger requires the driver to drive with great speed through a crowded street, and an injury should occur to foot-passengers or to anybody else, why then he might be liable, because it was by his own command and direction that it was done; but, ordinarily in a public hack, the passengers do not control the driver, and therefore I hold that unless you believe Mr. Hackett exercised control over the driver in this case, he is not liable for what the driver did. If you believe he did exercise control, and required the driver to cross at this particular time, then he would be liable because of his interference.'

The plaintiff recovered judgment, and this instruction is alleged as error for which its reversal is sought.

Robt. W. Deforest and F. L. Hall, for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 369-371 intentionally omitted] Robert H. Hinckley and Peter L. Voorhies, for defendant in error.

FIELD, J.

That one cannot recover damages for an injury to the commission of which he has directly contributed, is a rule of established law and a principle of common justice. And it matters not whether that contribution consists in his participation in the direct cause of the injury, or in his omission of duties which, if performed, would have prevented it. If his fault, whether of omission or commission, has been the proximate cause of the injury, he is without remedy against one also in the wrong. It would seem that the converse of this doctrine should be accepted as sound,—that when one has been injured by the wrongful act of another, to which he has in no respect contributed, he should be entitled to compensation in damages from the wrongdoer. And such is the generally received doctrine, unless a contributory cause of the injury has been the negligence or fault of some person towards whom he sustains the relation of superior or master, in which case the negligence is imputed to him, though he may not have personally participated in or had knowledge of it; and he must bear the consequences. The doctrine may also be subject to other exceptions growing out of the relation of parent and child or guardian and ward, and the like. Such a relation involves considerations which have no bearing upon the question before us.

To determine, therefore, the correctness of the instruction of the court be low—to the effect that if the plaintiff did not exercise control over the conduct of the driver at the time of the accident, he is not responsible for the driver's negligence, nor precluded thereby from recovering in the action—we have only to consider whether the relation of master and servant existed between them. Plainly, that relation did not exist. The driver was the servant of his employer, the livery-stable keeper, who hired out him, with horse and carriage, and was responsible for his acts. Upon this point we have a decision of the court of exchequer in Quarman v. Burnett, 6 Mees. & W 499. In that case it appeared that the owners or a chariot were in the habit of hiring, for a day or a drive, horses and a coachman from a job-mistress, for which she charged and received a certain sum. She paid the driver by the week, and the owners of the chariot gave him a gratuity for each day's service. On one occasion he left the horses unattended, and they ran off, and against the chaise of the plaintiff, seriously injuring him and the chaise, and he brought an action against the owners of the chariot, and obtained a verdict; but it was set aside on the ground that the coachman was the servant of the jobmistress, who was responsible for his negligence. In giving the opinion of the court, Baron PARKE said: 'It is undoubtedly true that there may be special circumstances which may render the hirer of job horses and servants responsible for the negligence of the servant, though not liable by virtue of the general relation of master and servant. He may become so by his own conduct; as by taking the actual management of the horses, or ordering the servant to drive in a particular manner, which occasions the damage complained of, or to absent himself at any particular moment, and the like.' As none of these circumstances existed, it was held that the defendants were not liable, because the relation of master and servant between them and the driver did not exist. This doctrine was approved and applied by the queen's bench division, in the recent case of Jones v. Corporation of Liverpool, 14 Q. B. Div. 890. The corporation owned a water-cart, and contracted with a Mrs. Dean for a horse and driver, that it might be used in watering the streets. The horse belonged to her, and the driver she employed was not under the control of the corporation otherwise than its inspector directed him what streets or portions of streets to water. Such directions he was required to obey under the contract with Mrs. Dean for his employment. The carriage of the plaintiff was injured by the negligent driving of the cart, and, in an action against the corporation for the injury, he recovered a verdict, which was set aside upon the ground that the driver was the servant of Mrs. Dean, who had hired both him and the horse to the corporation.

In this country there are many decisions of courts of the highest character to the same effect, to some of which we shall presently refer.

The doctrine, resting upon the principle that no one is to be denied a remedy for injuries sustained, without fault by him, or by a party under his control and direction, is qualified by cases in the English courts, wherein it is held that a party who trusts himself to a public conveyance is in some way identified with those who have it in charge, and that he can only...