Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Miller

• Citation: 87 Pa. 395
• Parties: Pennsylvania Railroad Co. <I>versus</I> Miller, <I>et ux.</I>
• Decision Date: 21 October 1878
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

87 Pa. 395

Pennsylvania Railroad Co. versus Miller, et ux.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

October 14, 1878.

October 21, 1878.

October 14th 1878.

Before AGNEW, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON and TRUNKEY, JJ. WOODWARD, J., absent

Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 2, of Allegheny county: Of October and November Term 1878, No. 63.

Hampton & Dalzell, for plaintiffs in error.—The defendants below were special bailees for hire, not liable to the plaintiffs for damage resulting to their goods from fire, unless such fire was caused by the negligence of the defendant company, and the onus of proving such negligence was on the plaintiffs: Farnham v. Camden & Amboy Railroad Co., 5 P. F. Smith 53. The court, as we conceive, committed error in two particulars. First, it regarded the presumption which arises from defendants' conduct in the first instance as independent proof in the case to be weighed with the other proof. Second, it submitted to the jury to find negligence when there was no evidence sufficient to authorize any inference of it.

The presumption said to have arisen in this case afforded a prima facie inference merely, conclusive only in the absence of opposing evidence. Its office was simply to shift the onus probandi. It had no value as evidence upon the subject about which it was a presumption, in the presence of positive and direct testimony on that same subject: Walsh v. Washington Insurance Co., 32 N. Y. 427; 2 Whart. on Ev., sect. 1245. If the presumption was not evidence of negligence, then there was none, and there being no evidence that ought reasonably to satisfy a jury that the fact sought to be proved is established, the case should not have been submitted to them: Wheelton v. Hardisty, 8 E. & B. 262; Toomey v. Railroad Co., 3 C. B. N. S. 146; Ryder v. Wombwell, 4 Law Rep. Ex. 32; Howard Express Co. v. Wile, 14 P. F. Smith 206; Reading Railroad Co. v. Yerger, 23 Id. 121.

M. W. Acheson and J. L. Koethen, for defendants in error.— If goods are lost or injured while in the custody of a carrier under a special contract, and he gives no account of how it occurred, a presumption of negligence is of course: American Express Co. v. Sands, 5 P. F. Smith 140. The doctrine of that case is that the mere failure of the carrier to give an account of the loss raises a presumption of negligence. How much more so the refusal to furnish the owner with any information as to how the injury occurred. Mere silence is a presumption of negligence:...