Ready v. Steamboat Highland Mary

• Decision Date: 31 January 1853
• Citation: 17 Mo. 461
• Parties: READY, Respondent, v. STEAMBOAT HIGHLAND MARY, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

17 Mo. 461

READY, Respondent,

v.STEAMBOAT HIGHLAND MARY, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1853.

1. Negligence is not a conclusion of law from the fact that a boat passes, in the night, a point in the river known to be difficult for boats to pass.

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.

Hovey, for appellant, relied upon Collier v. Valentine, 11 Mo. Rep. 310.

Napton, for respondent. The fact of “negligence” is found by the court. This is not to be understood as a declaration of the legal proposition that, under all circumstances, it would be negligence in a boat to pass a difficult and dangerous channel after daylight. That such was not the meaning of the court is obvious from the other facts found, viz: that the dangerous condition of the river, at this bend, was known to the officers of the boat, and that the guard of the boat was struck, and not the hull, and consequently by a limb projecting above the water, which might have been avoided in the day light. These facts altogether make out a clear case of negligence. Williams v. Grant, 1 Conn. Rep. 487. It is not necessary, under the code, for the court to detail in its finding all the circumstances upon which the fact of negligence depends. These are preserved in the bill of exceptions.

GAMBLE, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

Ready filed a complaint, under the statute, against the Highland Mary, charging that he had taken passage on the boat at Rocheport to go to Kansas, and that he had taken with him on board the boat a horse, to be transported on the same voyage, and be delivered at Kansas, the dangers of the river and fire excepted; that he was to pay for his own passage five dollars, and for the transportation of his horse the same sum; that on the voyage, by reason of the negligence of the officers and crew of the boat in placing the horse in an insecure place on the boat, and by negligent and careless management of the boat, the horse was lost overboard and never delivered at Kansas. An answer was filed for the boat, in which it was denied that the horse was taken on board the boat under any contract between the plaintiff and the boat or her officers, and it was alleged that the horse was at the risk of the plaintiff and subject to his order; that he was put in as secure a place as any other on the boat, and that his position was known to the plaintiff, who was a passenger on board; that the horse was lost entirely by the dangers of the navigation, and not by the negligence or want of skill or care of the officers or crew of the boat. At the trial, it appeared that the horse was fastened on the afterguard of the boat, and that in passing a dangerous part of the river, after night, the boat encountered a snag which tore away the guard upon which the horse stood, and he was...