Rose v. Stephens & Condit Transp. Co.

• Decision Date: 09 March 1882
• Citation: 11 F. 438
• Parties: ROSE v. STEPHENS & CONDIT TRANSP. Co.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

11 F. 438

ROSE v. STEPHENS & CONDIT TRANSP. Co.

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

March 9, 1882

Chauncey Shaffer, for plaintiff.

Butler Stillman & Hubbard, for defendant.

WALLACE D. J.

The plaintiff was injured by the explosion of a steam-boiler which was being used by the defendant to propel a vessel chartered by the defendant to others to be used for the transportation of passengers and freight. If the explosion resulted either from the carelessness of the employes of the defendant in charge of the boiler, or from the negligence of the defendant in sending forth an unsafe and dangerous boiler to be used where human life would be endangered if the boiler should explode it is conceded the defendant was liable. It is contended however, that it was error to instruct the jury that they might infer such negligence from the fact of the explosion; and it is argued that such a presumption only obtains when the defendant is under a contract obligation to the plaintiff, as in the case of a common carrier or bailee. Undoubtedly the presumption has been more frequently applied in cases against carriers of passengers than in any other class, but there is no foundation in authority or in reason for any such limitation of the rule of evidence. The presumption originates from the nature of the act, not from the nature of the relations between the parties. It is indulged as a legitimate inference whenever the occurrence is such as, in the ordinary course of things, does not take place when proper care is exercised, and is one for which the defendant is responsible. It will be sufficient to cite two cases in illustration of the rule, without referring to other authorities.

In Scott v. London & St. Catherine Dock Co. 3 Hurl. & C. 596, the plaintiff, as he was passing by a warehouse of the defendant, was injured by bags of sugar falling from a crane by which they were lowered to the ground. The court said there must be reasonable evidence of negligence; but where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as, in the ordinary course of things, does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care. This case is cited, with approbation, in Transp. Co. v. Downer, 11 Wall. 129.

In Mullen v. St. John, 57 N.Y....