TORTS CASES: NEGLIGENCE
PALSGRAF v. LONG ISLAND RAILROAD CO.
Court of Appeals of New York (1928)
CARDOZO, Ch. J.
Plaintiff was standing on a platform of defendant's railroad after buying a ticket to go to
Rockaway Beach. A train stopped at the station, bound for another place. Two men ran forward
to catch it. One of the men reached the platform of the car without mishap, though the train was
already moving. The other man, carrying a package, jumped aboard the car, but seemed unsteady
as if about to fall. A guard on the car, who had held the door open, reached forward to help him
in, and another guard on the platform pushed him from behind. In this act, the package was
dislodged, and fell upon the rails. It was a package of small size, about fifteen inches long, and
was covered by a newspaper. In fact it contained fireworks, but there was nothing in its
appearance to give notice of its contents. The fireworks when they fell exploded. The shock of
the explosion threw down some scales at the other end of the platform, many feet away. The
scales struck the plaintiff, causing injuries for which she sues.
The conduct of the defendant's guard, if a wrong in its relation to the holder of the package, was
not a wrong in its relation to the plaintiff, standing far away. Relatively to her it was not
negligence at all. Nothing in the situation gave notice that the falling package had in it the
potency of peril to persons thus removed. Negligence is not actionable unless it involves the
invasion of a legally protected interest, the violation of a right. "Negligence is the absence of
care, according to the circumstances." The plaintiff as she stood upon the platform of the station
might claim to be protected against intentional invasion of her bodily security. Such invasion is
not charged. She might claim to be protected against unintentional invasion by conduct involving
in the thought of reasonable men an unreasonable hazard that such invasion would ensue. These,
from the point of view of the law, were the bounds of her immunity. If no hazard was apparent to
the eye of ordinary vigilance, an act innocent and harmless, at least to outward seeming, with
reference to her, did not take to itself the quality of a tort because it happened to be a wrong,
though apparently not one involving the risk of bodily insecurity, with reference to some one
else. "In every instance, before negligence can be predicated of a given act, back of the act must
be sought and found a duty to the individual complaining, the observance of which would have
averted or avoided the injury." "The ideas of negligence and duty are strictly correlative." The
plaintiff sues in her own right for a wrong personal to her, and not as the vicarious beneficiary of
a breach of duty to another.
A different conclusion will involve us, and swiftly too, in a maze of contradictions. In this case,
the rights that are said to have been violated, the interests said to have been invaded, are not even
of the same order. The man was not injured in his person nor even put in danger. The purpose of
the act, as well as its effect, was to make his person safe. If there was a wrong to him at all,
1
which may very well be doubted, it was a wrong to a property interest only, the safety of his
package. Out of this wrong to property, which threatened injury to nothing else, there has passed,
we are told, to the plaintiff by derivation or succession a right of action for the invasion of an
interest of another order, the right to bodily security. The diversity of interests emphasizes the
futility of the effort to build the plaintiff's right upon the basis of a wrong to some one else. The
gain is one of emphasis, for a like result would follow if the interests were the same. Even then,
the orbit of the danger as disclosed to the eye of reasonable vigilance would be the orbit of the
duty. One who jostles one's neighbor in a crowd does not invade the rights of others standing at
the outer fringe when the unintended contact casts a bomb upon the ground. The wrongdoer as to
them is the man who carries the bomb, not the one who explodes it without suspicion of the
danger. Life will have to be made over, and human nature transformed, before prevision so
extravagant can be accepted as the norm of conduct, the customary standard to which behavior
must conform.
The argument for the plaintiff is built upon the shifting meanings of such words as "wrong" and
"wrongful," and shares their instability. What the plaintiff must show is "a wrong" to herself, i.
e., a violation of her own right, and not merely a wrong to some one else, nor conduct "wrongful"
because unsocial, but not "a wrong" to any one. We are told that one who drives at reckless speed
through a crowded city street is guilty of a negligent act and, therefore, of a wrongful one
irrespective of the consequences. Negligent the act is, and wrongful in the sense that it is
unsocial, but wrongful and unsocial in relation to other travelers, only because the eye of
vigilance perceives the risk of damage. If the same act were to be committed on a speedway or a
race course, it would lose its wrongful quality. The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the
duty to be obeyed, and risk imports relation; it is risk to another or to others within the range of
apprehension. This does not mean, of course, that one who launches a destructive force is always
relieved of liability if the force, though known to be destructive, pursues an unexpected path. "It
was not necessary that the defendant should have had notice of the particular method in which an
accident would occur, if the possibility of an accident was clear to the ordinarily prudent eye."
Some acts, such as shooting, are so imminently dangerous to any one who may come within
reach of the missile, however unexpectedly, as to impose a duty of prevision not far from that of
an insurer. Even today, and much oftener in earlier stages of the law, one acts sometimes at one's
peril. Under this head, it may be, fall certain cases of what is known as transferred intent, an act
willfully dangerous to A resulting by misadventure in injury to B. These cases aside, wrong is
defined in terms of the natural or probable, at least when unintentional. The range of reasonable
apprehension is at times a question for the court, and at times, if varying inferences are possible,
a question for the jury. Here, by concession, there was nothing in the situation to suggest to the
most cautious mind that the parcel wrapped in newspaper would spread wreckage through the
station. If the guard had thrown it down knowingly and willfully, he would not have threatened
the plaintiff's safety, so far as appearances could warn him. His conduct would not have
involved, even then, an unreasonable probability of invasion of her bodily security. Liability can
be no greater where the act is inadvertent.
Negligence, like risk, is thus a term of relation. Negligence in the abstract, apart from things
2
related, is surely not a tort, if indeed it is understandable at all. Negligence is not a tort unless it
results in the commission of a wrong, and the commission of a wrong imports the violation of a
right, in this case, we are told, the right to be protected against interference with one's bodily
security. But bodily security is protected, not against all forms of interference or aggression, but
only against some. One who seeks redress at law does not make out a cause of action by showing
without more that there has been damage to his person. If the harm was not willful, he must show
that the act as to him had possibilities of danger so many and apparent as to entitle him to be
protected against the doing of it though the harm was unintended. Affront to personality is still
the keynote of the wrong. The victim does not sue derivatively, or by right of subrogation, to
vindicate an interest invaded in the person of another. Thus to view his cause of action is to
ignore the fundamental difference between tort and crime. He sues for breach of a duty owing to
himself.
The law of causation, remote or proximate, is thus foreign to the case before us. The question of
liability is always anterior to the question of the measure of the consequences that go with
liability. If there is no tort to be redressed, there is no occasion to consider what damage might be
recovered if there were a finding of a tort. We may assume, without deciding, that negligence,
not at large or in the abstract, but in relation to the plaintiff, would entail liability for any and all
consequences, however novel or extraordinary. There is room for argument that a distinction is to
be drawn according to the diversity of interests invaded by the act, as where conduct negligent in
that it threatens an insignificant invasion of an interest in property results in an unforseeable
invasion of an interest of another order, as, e. g., one of bodily security. Perhaps other
distinctions may be necessary. We do not go into the question now. The consequences to be
followed must first be rooted in a wrong. The judgment of the Appellate Division and that of the
Trial Term should be reversed, and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts.
ANDREWS, J. (dissenting).
Assisting a passenger to board a train, the defendant's servant negligently knocked a package
from his arms. It fell between the platform and the cars. Of its contents the servant knew and
could know nothing. A violent explosion followed. The concussion broke some scales standing a
considerable distance away. In falling they injured the plaintiff, an intending passenger.
Upon these facts may she recover the damages she has suffered in an action brought against the
master? The result we shall reach depends upon our theory as to the nature of negligence. Is it a
relative concept—the breach of some duty owing to a particular person or to particular persons?
Or where there is an act which unreasonably threatens the safety of others, is the doer liable for
all its proximate consequences, even where they result in injury to one who would generally be
thought to be outside the radius of danger? This is not a mere dispute as to words. We might not
believe that to the average mind the dropping of the bundle would seem to involve the
probability of harm to the plaintiff standing many feet away whatever might be the case as to the
owner or to one so near as to be likely to be struck by its fall. If, however, we adopt the second
3
hypothesis we have to inquire only as to the relation between cause and effect. We deal in terms
of proximate cause, not of negligence.
Negligence may be defined roughly as an act or omission which unreasonably does or may affect
the rights of others, or which unreasonably fails to protect oneself from the dangers resulting
from such acts. Here I confine myself to the first branch of the definition. Nor do I comment on
the word "unreasonable." For present purposes it sufficiently describes that average of conduct
that society requires of its members.
There must be both the act or the omission, and the right. As has been said, there must be rights
which are or may be affected. Often though injury has occurred, no rights of him who suffers
have been touched. A licensee or trespasser upon my land has no claim to affirmative care on my
part that the land be made safe. Where a railroad is required to fence its tracks against cattle, no
man's rights are injured should he wander upon the road because such fence is absent.
But we are told that "there is no negligence unless there is in the particular case a legal duty to
take care, and this duty must be one which is owed to the plaintiff himself and not merely to
others." This, I think too narrow a conception. Where there is the unreasonable act, and some
right that may be affected there is negligence whether damage does or does not result. That is
immaterial. Should we drive down Broadway at a reckless speed, we are negligent whether we
strike an approaching car or miss it by an inch. The act itself is wrongful. It is a wrong not only to
those who happen to be within the radius of danger but to all who might have been there— a
wrong to the public at large. Due care is a duty imposed on each one of us to protect society from
unnecessary danger, not to protect A, B or C alone.
It may well be that there is no such thing as negligence in the abstract. In an empty world
negligence would not exist. It does involve a relationship between man and his fellows. But not
merely a relationship between man and those whom he might reasonably expect his act would
injure. Rather, a relationship between him and those whom he does in fact injure. If his act has a
tendency to harm some one, it harms him a mile away as surely as it does those on the scene.
The proposition is this. Every one owes to the world at large the duty of refraining from those
acts that may unreasonably threaten the safety of others. Such an act occurs. Not only is he
wronged to whom harm might reasonably be expected to result, but he also who is in fact injured,
even if he be outside what would generally be thought the danger zone. There needs be duty due
the one complaining but this is not a duty to a particular individual because as to him harm might
be expected. Harm to some one being the natural result of the act, not only that one alone, but all
those in fact injured may complain. Unreasonable risk being taken, its consequences are not
confined to those who might probably be hurt.
The right to recover damages rests on additional considerations. The plaintiff's rights must be
injured, and this injury must be caused by the negligence. When injuries do result from our
unlawful act we are liable for the consequences. It does not matter that they are unusual,
4
unexpected, unforeseen and unforseeable. But there is one limitation. The damages must be so
connected with the negligence that the latter may be said to be the proximate cause of the former.
These two words have never been given an inclusive definition. What is a cause in a legal sense,
still more what is a proximate cause, depend in each case upon many considerations, as does the
existence of negligence itself. Any philosophical doctrine of causation does not help us. What we
do mean by the word "proximate" is, that because of convenience, of public policy, of a rough
sense of justice, the law arbitrarily declines to trace a series of events beyond a certain point. This
is not logic. It is practical politics.
The act upon which defendant's liability rests is knocking an apparently harmless package onto
the platform. The act was negligent. For its proximate consequences the defendant is liable. If its
contents were broken, to the owner; if it fell upon and crushed a passenger's foot, then to him. If
it exploded and injured one in the immediate vicinity, to him also. Mrs. Palsgraf was standing
some distance away. How far cannot be told from the record—apparently twenty-five or thirty
feet. Perhaps less. Except for the explosion, she would not have been injured. We are told by the
appellant in his brief "it cannot be denied that the explosion was the direct cause of the plaintiff's
injuries." So it was a substantial factor in producing the result—there was here a natural and
continuous sequence—direct connection. The only intervening cause was that instead of blowing
her to the ground the concussion smashed the weighing machine which in turn fell upon her.
There was no remoteness in time, little in space. And surely, given such an explosion as here it
needed no great foresight to predict that the natural result would be to injure one on the platform
at no greater distance from its scene than was the plaintiff. Just how no one might be able to
predict. Whether by flying fragments, by broken glass, by wreckage of machines or structures no
one could say. But injury in some form was most probable. Under these circumstances I cannot
say as a matter of law that the plaintiff's injuries were not the proximate result of the negligence.
The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.
HEATH v. SWIFT WINGS, INC.
340 N.C. App. 158 (1979)
MORRIS, Chief Judge.
It is a familiar rule of law that the standard of care required of an individual, unless altered by
statute, is the conduct of the reasonably prudent man under the same or similar circumstances.
While the standard of care of the reasonably prudent man remains constant, the quantity or
degree of care required varies significantly with the attendant circumstances.
The trial court improperly introduced a subjective standard of care into the definition of
negligence by referring to the "ordinary care and caution, which an ordinary prudent pilot having
the same training and experience as Fred Heath, would have used in the same or similar
circumstances." We are aware of the authorities which support the application of a greater
5
standard of care than that of the ordinary prudent man for persons shown to possess special skill
in a particular endeavor. See generally Prosser, Law of Torts (4th ed.) § 32. Indeed, our courts
have long recognized that one who engages in a business, occupation, or profession must
exercise the requisite degree of learning, skill, and ability of that calling with reasonable and
ordinary care. See e. g., Insurance Co. v. Sprinkler Co., 266 N.C. 134 (1966) (fire sprinkler
contractor); Service Co. v. Sales Co., 261 N.C. 660 (1964) (industrial designer); Hunt v.
Bradshaw, 242 N.C. 517 (1955) (physician); Hodges v. Carter, 239 N.C. 517 (1954) (attorney).
Furthermore, the specialist within a profession may be held to a standard of care greater than that
required of the general practitioner. Nevertheless, the professional standard remains an objective
standard. For example, the recognized standard for a physician is established as "the standard of
professional competence and care customary in similar communities among physicians engaged
in his field of practice."
Such objective standards avoid the evil of imposing a different standard of care upon each
individual. The instructions in this case concerning the pilot's standard of care are misleading at
best, and a misapplication of the law. They permit the jury to consider Fred Heath's own
particular experience and training, whether outstanding or inferior, in determining the requisite
standard of conduct, rather than applying a minimum standard generally applicable to all pilots.
The plaintiff is entitled to an instruction holding Fred Heath to the objective minimum standard
of care applicable to all pilots.
TRIMARCO v. KLEIN
56 N.Y.2d 98 (1982)
FUCHSBERG, J.
After trial by jury in a negligence suit for personal injuries, the plaintiff, Vincent N. Trimarco,
recovered a judgment of $240,000. A sharply divided Appellate Division having reversed on the
law and dismissed the complaint, our primary concern on this appeal is with the role of the proof
plaintiff produced on custom and usage. The ultimate issue is whether he made out a case.
The controversy has its genesis in the shattering of a bathtub's glass enclosure door in a multiple
dwelling in July, 1976. Taking the testimony most favorably to the plaintiff, as we must in
passing on the presence of a prima facie case, we note that, according to the trial testimony, at the
time of the incident plaintiff, the tenant of the apartment in which it happened, was in the process
of sliding the door open so that he could exit the tub. It is undisputed that the occurrence was
sudden and unexpected and the injuries he received from the lacerating glass most severe.
The door, which turned out to have been made of ordinary glass variously estimated as one
sixteenth to one quarter of an inch in thickness, concededly would have presented no different
appearance to the plaintiff and his wife than did tempered safety glass, which their
uncontradicted testimony shows they assumed it to be. Nor was there any suggestion that
6
defendants ever brought its true nature to their attention.
As part of his case, plaintiff, with the aid of expert testimony, developed that, since at least the
early 1950's, a practice of using shatterproof glazing materials for bathroom enclosures had come
into common use, so that by 1976 the glass door here no longer conformed to accepted safety
standards. This proof was reinforced by a showing that over this period bulletins of nationally
recognized safety and consumer organizations along with official Federal publications had joined
in warning of the dangers that lurked when plain glass was utilized in "hazardous locations,"
including "bathtub enclosures." Over objection, the trial court also allowed in sections 389-m and
389-o of New York's General Business Law, which, enacted in 1972 though effective only as of
July 1, 1973, required, on pain of criminal sanctions, that only "safety glazing material" be used
in all bathroom enclosures after the effective date; however, the court carefully cautioned the jury
that, because the statute did not apply to existing installations, of which the glass in question was
one, it only was to be considered "along with all the other proof in this case, as a standard by
which you may measure the conduct of the defendants." And, on examination of the defendants'
managing agent, who long had enjoyed extensive familiarity with the management of multiple
dwelling units in the New York City area, plaintiff's counsel elicited agreement that, since at least
1965, it was customary for landlords who had occasion to install glass for shower enclosures,
whether to replace broken glass or to comply with the request of a tenant or otherwise, to do so
with "some material such as plastic or safety glass."
In face of this record, in essence, the rationale of the majority at the Appellate Division was that,
"assuming that there existed a custom and usage at the time to substitute shatterproof glass" and
that this was a "better way or a safer method of enclosing showers," unless prior notice of the
danger came to the defendants either from the plaintiff or by reason of a similar accident in the
building, no duty devolved on the defendants to replace the glass either under the common law or
under section 78 of the Multiple Dwelling Law. To this the court added that, were it not
dismissing, it would have ordered a new trial because, in its view, the admission of the
afore-mentioned sections of the General Business Law, even with the reservations attached by
the Trial Judge, constituted reversible error.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice LEONARD SANDLER disagreed on both counts; on the
underlying liability issue, he found that the plaintiff had presented a clear question of fact for the
jury and, on the evidentiary one stemming from the submission of the General Business Law,
after noting that a careful marshaling of authorities had persuaded him that it was a "close
question," he opined that whether the statute should have gone to the jury was properly within the
Trial Judge's discretion. Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Justice ARNOLD FEIN,
writing separately, took the position that, while there indeed was "ample" evidence of custom and
usage to support the plaintiff's verdict, a new trial was required since the advice to the jury of the
contents of the statute, no matter how cushioned by qualifications, "could only be misleading."
For the reasons which follow, we agree with Justice SANDLER and Justice FEIN that plaintiff
established a prima facie case. However, we would not disturb the conclusion of Justice FEIN
7
and the majority that the General Business Law did not belong in the case.
Our analysis may well begin by rejecting defendants' contention that the shower door was not
within the compass of section 78 of the Multiple Dwelling Law. From early on, it was
understood that this statute was enacted in recognition of the reality that occupants of tenements
in apartment houses, notwithstanding their control of the rented premises, as a practical matter
looked to their landlords for the safe maintenance of the tenanted quarters as well. The result was
that, if responsibility for keeping "every part thereof * * * in good repair" was not placed on the
landlords, defects would remain unremedied (Multiple Dwelling Law, § 78). Therefore, though
early cases may have chosen to give the statutory phrase "every part" a restrictive connotation,
later cases made clear that the remedial reach of the legislation mandated a more expansive
interpretation under which fixtures or appliances furnished by the landlord were found to be
within the statutory intendment.
Which brings us to the well-recognized and pragmatic proposition that when "certain dangers
have been removed by a customary way of doing things safely, this custom may be proved to
show that [the one charged with the dereliction] has fallen below the required standard." Such
proof, of course, is not admitted in the abstract. It must bear on what is reasonable conduct under
all the circumstances, the quintessential test of negligence.
It follows that, when proof of an accepted practice is accompanied by evidence that the defendant
conformed to it, this may establish due care and, contrariwise, when proof of a customary
practice is coupled with a showing that it was ignored and that this departure was a proximate
cause of the accident, it may serve to establish liability. Put more conceptually, proof of a
common practice aids in "formulat[ing] the general expectation of society as to how individuals
will act in the course of their undertakings, and thus to guide the common sense or expert
intuition of a jury or commission when called on to judge of particular conduct under particular
circumstances."
The source of the probative power of proof of custom and usage is described differently by
various authorities, but all agree on its potency. Chief among the rationales offered is, of course,
the fact that it reflects the judgment and experience and conduct of many. Support for its
relevancy and reliability comes too from the direct bearing it has on feasibility, for its focusing is
on the practicality of a precaution in actual operation and the readiness with which it can be
employed. Following in the train of both of these boons is the custom's exemplification of the
opportunities it provides to others to learn of the safe way, if that the customary one be. (See
Restatement, Torts 2d, § 295A, Comments a, b.)
From all this it is not to be assumed customary practice and usage need be universal. It suffices
that it be fairly well defined and in the same calling or business so that "the actor may be charged
with knowledge of it or negligent ignorance" (Prosser, Torts [4th ed], § 33, p 168; Restatement,
Torts 2d, § 295A, p 62, Comment a).
8
However, once its existence is credited, a common practice or usage is still not necessarily a
conclusive or even a compelling test of negligence. Before it can be, the jury must be satisfied
with its reasonableness. After all, customs and usages run the gamut of merit like everything else.
That is why the question in each instance is whether it meets the test of reasonableness. As
Holmes' now classic statement on this subject expresses it, "[w]hat usually is done may be
evidence of what ought to be done, but what ought to be done is fixed by a standard of reasonable
prudence, whether it usually is complied with or not."
So measured, the case the plaintiff presented, even without the insertion of sections 389-m and
389-o of the General Business Law, was enough to send it to the jury and to sustain the verdict
reached. The expert testimony, the admissions of the defendant's manager, the data on which the
professional and governmental bulletins were based, the evidence of how replacements were
handled by at least the local building industry for the better part of two decades, these in the
aggregate easily filled that bill. Moreover, it was also for the jury to decide whether, at the point
in time when the accident occurred, the modest cost and ready availability of safety glass and the
dynamics of the growing custom to use it for shower enclosures had transformed what once may
have been considered a reasonably safe part of the apartment into one which, in the light of later
developments, no longer could be so regarded.
Furthermore, the charge on this subject was correct. The Trial Judge placed the evidence of
custom and usage "by others engaged in the same business" in proper perspective, when, among
other things, he told the jury that the issue on which it was received was "the reasonableness of
the defendant's conduct under all the circumstances." He also emphasized that the testimony on
this score was not conclusive, not only by saying so but by explaining that "the mere fact that
another person or landlord may have used a better or safer practice does not establish a standard"
and that it was for the jurors "to determine whether or not the evidence in this case does establish
a general custom or practice".
Nevertheless, we reverse and order a new trial because the General Business Law sections should
have been excluded. True, if a statutory scheme intended for the protection of a particular class,
as is the one here, does not expressly provide for civil liability, there is responsible authority for
the proposition that a court may, in furtherance of the statutory purpose, read in such an intent.
Be that as it may, the fact is that the statutes here protected only those tenants for whom shower
glazing was installed after the statutory effective date. Plaintiff was not in that class. Thus, while
new installations made during the three-year interval between July 1, 1973, the effective date of
the new General Business Law provisions, and July, 1976, when plaintiff was injured, could have
counted numerically in the totality of any statistics to support the existence of a developing
custom to use safety glass, defendants' objection to the statutes themselves should have been
sustained. Without belaboring the point, it cannot be said that the statutes, once injected into the
adversarial conflict, did not prejudice the defendants. Nor is it any answer to suggest that
balancing the risk of prejudice against the asserted relevancy of the statutes here was a
supportable discretionary judicial act. Unlike hearsay, which at times may be rendered admissible
by necessity, the other proof of custom here eliminates the possibility of this justification.
9
For all these reasons, the order should be reversed and a new trial granted.
BYRNE V. BOADLE
Exchequer Court (November 25, 1863)
The plaintiff was walking in a public street past the defendant’s shop when a barrel of flour fell
upon him from a window above the shop, and seriously injured him. Held sufficient prima facie
evidence of negligence for the jury, to cast on the defendant the onus of proving that the accident
was not caused by his negligence.
Declaration:
For that the defendant, by his servants, so negligently and unskillfully managed and lowered
certain barrels of flour by means of a certain jigger-hoist and machinery attached to the shop of
the defendant, situated in a certain highway, along which the plaintiff was then passing, that by
and through the negligence of the defendant, by his said servants, one of the said barrels of flour
fell upon and struck against the plaintiff, whereby the plaintiff was thrown down, wounded,
lamed, and permanently injured, and was prevented from attending to his business for a long
time, to wit, thence hitherto, and incurred great expense for medical attendance, and suffered
great pain and anguish.
At the trial before the learned Assessor of the Court of Passage at Liverpool, the evidence
adduced on the part of the plaintiff was as follows: A witness named Critchley said: “On the 18th
July, I was in Scotland Road, on the right side going north, defendant’s shop is on that side.
When I was opposite to his shop, a barrel of flour fell from a window above in defendant’s house
and shop, and knocked the plaintiff down. He was carried into an adjoining shop. A horse and
cart came opposite the defendant’s door. Barrels of flour were in the cart. I do not think the barrel
was being lowered by a rope. I cannot say: I did not see the barrel until it struck the plaintiff. It
was not swinging when it struck the plaintiff. It struck him on the shoulder and knocked him
towards the shop. No one called out until after the accident.” The plaintiff said: “On approaching
Scotland Place and defendant’s shop, I lost all recollection. I felt no blow. I saw nothing to warn
me of danger. I was taken home in a cab. I was helpless for a fortnight.” (He then described his
sufferings.) “I saw the path clear. I did not see any cart opposite defendant’s shop.” Another
witness said: “I saw a barrel falling. I don’t know how, but from defendant’s.” The only other
witness was a surgeon, who described the injury which the plaintiff had received. It was admitted
that the defendant was a dealer in flour.
It was submitted, on the part of the defendant, that there was no evidence of negligence for the
jury. The learned Assessor was of that opinion, and nonsuited the plaintiff, reserving leave to him
to move the Court of Exchequer to enter the verdict for him with damages, the amount assessed
by the jury.
10
POLLOCK, Chief Baron.
There are certain cases of which it may be said res ipsa loquitur, and this seems oneof them. I
think it would be wrong to lay down as a rule that in no case can presumption of negligence arise
from the fact of an accident. Suppose in this case the barrel had rolled out of the warehouse and
fallen on the plaintiff, how could he possibly ascertain from what cause it occurred? It is the duty
of persons who keep barrels in a warehouse to take care that they do not roll out, and I think that
such a case would, beyond all doubt, afford prima facie evidence of negligence. A barrel could
not roll out of a warehouse without some negligence, and to say that a plaintiff who is injured by
it must call witnesses from the warehouse to prove negligence seems to me preposterous.
So in the building or repairing a house, or putting pots on the chimneys, if a person passing along
the road is injured by something falling upon him, I think the accident alone would be prima
facie evidence of negligence. Or if an article calculated to cause damage is put in a wrong place
and does mischief, I think that those whose duty it was to put it in the right place are primâ facie
responsible, and if there is any state of facts to rebut the presumption of negligence, they must
prove them. The present case upon the evidence comes to this, a man is passing in front of the
premises of a dealer in flour, and there falls down upon him a barrel of flour. I think it apparent
that the barrel was in the custody of the defendant who occupied the premises, and who is
responsible for the acts of his servants who had the control of it; and in my opinion the fact of its
falling is prima facie evidence of negligence, and the plaintiff who was injured by it is not bound
to show that it could not fall without negligence, but if there are any facts inconsistent with
negligence it is for the defendant to prove them.
11