Robinson v. New York Cent. & H.R.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 January 1882
• Citation: 9 F. 877
• Parties: ROBINSON v. NEW YORK CENT. & HUDSON RIVER R. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

9 F. 877

ROBINSON v. NEW YORK CENT. & HUDSON RIVER R. CO.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. New York.

January, 1882

E Countryman, for plaintiff.

M Hale, for defendant.

WALLACE D.J.

The plaintiff, while upon one of the defendant's cars as a passenger, in June, 1878, was injured by the explosion of the boiler of the defendant's locomotive, which was being used to push the train out of the yard, and brought this action on the ground of negligence to recover for his injuries. Upon the issue of negligence the plaintiff rested his case by proving the explosion. The defendant produced its employees, who testified to the exercise of due care in the management of the boiler at the time of the explosion, and who also testified that the boiler had been recently overhauled, repaired, and tested, and found safe, and that the explosion resulted from a hidden flaw in the iron of the boiler which could not be seen.

The jury were instructed that they might infer negligence upon the theory that the explosion would not have taken place unless the boiler had been in a defective condition, or unless there had been some omission or mismanagement on the part of those in charge of it at the time. They were also instructed that it was incumbent upon the defendant as a passenger carrier to see to it, by every test recognized as necessary by experts, that the boiler was in a safe condition; but that it was not liable for a defect which could not be discovered by such tests.

The first instruction is not criticised. It is elementary that in action for negligence if the plaintiff proves he has been injured by an act of the defendant, of such a nature that in similar cases, where due care has been taken, no injury is known to ensue, he raises a presumption against the defendant which the latter must rebut.

The other instructions were strictly correct. The jury were not told that the defendant was required to adopt every test known to experts to ascertain the safe condition of the boiler.

If this instruction had been given, within some of the authorities it would not have been erroneous. It has been frequently declared that the carrier of passengers contracts for their safety as far as human care and foresight can go, (Stokes v. Satonstall, 13 Pet. 181; Pa.R.Co. v. Roy, 102 U.S. 451,) and must adopt all the precautions which have been practically tested and are known to be of value, and employ all the skill which is...