Scott et al. v. Hunter et al.

• Decision Date: 12 November 1863
• Citation: 46 Pa. 192
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Parties: Scott <I>et al. versus</I> Hunter <I>et al.</I>

Page 192

46 Pa. 192

Scott et al. versus Hunter et al.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

November 12, 1863.

ERROR to the District Court of Allegheny county.

Alex. M. Watson, for plaintiff in error.

C. B. M. Smith, for defendant in error.

The opinion of the court was delivered, November 12th 1863, by STRONG, J.

This was an action of trespass on the case, brought to recover the value of two coal-boats, with their cargoes, belonging to the plaintiffs, and lost, as they aver, through the unlawful, wilful, malicious, and negligent conduct of the defendants. The declaration contained two counts, the first of which averred that the defendants had caused the loss of the boats by unlawfully, wilfully, and maliciously mooring their own coal-boats in the channel and entrance to the locks at one of the dams of the Monongahela Navigation Company, on the Monongahela river, and keeping them in that situation, thus stopping the navigation for the plaintiffs' boats, and detaining them in the river, though they were ready and prepared to proceed on their voyage, while the river was rapidly rising, and until the power of the current forced them over the dam and caused a total wreck. The second count charged unlawful and negligent conduct of the defendants in the management of their boats at the locks, thus obstructing the entrance thereto, and the channel of the river, and preventing the passage of the plaintiffs' boats, while the river was rapidly rising and exposing them to great hazard, and while the defendants well knew the boats were in danger. It further averred that with this knowledge, the obstructions were continued by the defendants, until the plaintiffs' boats were carried over the dam by the current, and totally lost.

On the trial, the jury, under instructions given by the court, found a verdict for the plaintiffs, and assessed damages, thus establishing that the defendants were guilty of the misconduct and negligence complained of, and that the plaintiffs were chargeable with no negligence or default which contributed to the loss. Both these questions were submitted plainly to the jury, and they are now at rest. But the court reserved the question whether the connection between the defendants' wrongful acts and the loss of the boats over the dam was sufficiently close, to enable the plaintiffs to maintain their action, and, after consideration, being of opinion that the rapid rise in the river and the consequent increased current was the proximate cause of the loss, and that the wanton or negligent obstruction of the locks, and of the channel of the river, was a cause too remote, entered judgment for the defendants non obstante veredicto.

It is observable that the jury did not pass upon the question whether the defendants ought not to have apprehended that their unlawful and continued obstruction of the entrance to the locks might result in the plaintiffs' boats being swept by the current over the dam, and lost, as they were. This was not submitted to them. The court assumed that the sudden rise of the river, and the danger to the plaintiffs' boats, could not have been anticipated by ordinary prudence and care. Now it is very obvious that if the defendants, while they were wantonly or negligently keeping their own boats at the entrance of the locks, and preventing the passage of the plaintiffs', knew the danger to which their unlawful act exposed the property of the plaintiffs, as it is averred in the declaration they did, they are responsible for the damage which resulted from their act, though it was not the most proximate cause. And so, if they ought to have known the danger, as men of ordinary prudence, and yet persisted in maintaining the obstruction, they are responsible. It is a familiar principle that a man is answerable for such consequences of his unlawful acts as are natural, and may be foreseen by ordinary forecast. What is ordinary care in the performance of an act depends upon the surrounding circumstances.

It is greater or less, according to the increased or diminished hazard to others with which it is done. That may be prudent if done in a wilderness, which would be grossly careless if done in a crowded city. Why? Because no injurious consequences would naturally be expected in the one case, while in the other they may be almost inevitable. Hence the actor is bound to anticipate more in the one case than in the other, and as he is liable for all he should have foreseen, the extent of his responsibility is not the same.

In the present case, the defendants obstructed the passage through the locks from about four o'clock in the afternoon of April 9th, until in the afternoon of the 10th of April, and until after the plaintiffs' boats had been carried over the dam. Their act was unlawful, either wanton or negligent. During all the time, they saw the river rising rapidly, and with it, of course, the current increasing. From two o'clock on the morning of the 10th, until the disaster occurred, the water rose at the rate of nearly a foot in an hour, and of course the pressure of the current was becoming greater. Meanwhile the plaintiffs' boats were moored out in the...