In this case, which was an action for damages for a death
caused, in a collision, by the alleged negligence of the owner of a
vessel on which it was claimed the deceased was a passenger, the
judgment below is reversed for error in refusing to direct a
verdict for the defendant on the ground that there was no evidence
that the deceased lost his life by reason of the collision or by
the negligence of the defendant, and in refusing to grant the
request of the defendant to go to the jury on the question whether
the deceased lost his life by reason of the collision.
This was an action to recover damages for injuries resulting to
the widow and children of Charles C. Clare by reason of
Page 127 U. S. 46
his death, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the
steamship company as common carriers, while he was a passenger on
one of their steamers. Verdict for plaintiff and judgment on the
verdict. Defendant sued out this writ of error. The case is stated
in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action at law brought in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York by Almira R. Clare, as administratrix of the
estate of Charles C. Clare, deceased, against the Providence and
Stonington Steamship Company, a Rhode Island corporation, to
recover the sum of $5,000, with interest from June 11, 1880, as
statutory damages, for the death of Charles C. Clare. The plaintiff
is his widow, and he left four minor children, his heirs at law and
next of kin.
The complaint alleges that the defendant was the owner of two
steamboats, the
Narragansett and the
Stonington,
running between Stonington, Connecticut, and New York City; that on
or about the 11th of June, 1880, the defendant received Clare on
the
Narragansett for the purpose of conveying him therein
as a passenger from New York City to Stonington for a reasonable
compensation paid to it by Clare; that the
Narragansett,
under the management and direction of the defendant, having Clare
on board as a passenger, and proceeding through the waters of Long
Island sound, met the
Stonington proceeding on her way to
New York City; that, by the negligence of the defendant, the two
vessels came into collision, whereby the
Narragansett was
so injured that fire immediately broke out on her, and she sank
within a few moments, and Clare, without any neglect on his part,
was drowned; that the collision occurred either in the State of New
York or in the State of Connecticut; that § 9 of c. 6, title 19, of
the Laws of 1875 of the State of Connecticut provides that all
damages resulting in death, recovered in an
Page 127 U. S. 47
action brought by an executor or administrator, shall inure to
the benefit of the husband or widow and heirs of the deceased
person, and that § 1, c. 78, of the Laws of 1877 of the State of
Connecticut provides that in all actions by an executor or
administrator for injuries resulting in death from negligence, such
executor or administrator may recover from the party legally in
fault for such injuries just damages not exceeding $5,000, to be
distributed as provided in § 9, c. 6, title 19, of the laws of
1875, but such action must be brought within one year from the
neglect complained of. This suit was brought within the year.
By the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of New York, § 1902,
it is provided as follows:
"The executor or administrator of a decedent, who has left him
or her surviving a husband, wife, or next of kin, may maintain an
action to recover damages for a wrongful act, neglect, or default,
by which the decedent's death was caused, against a natural person
who, or a corporation which, would have been liable to an action in
favor of the decedent by reason thereof if death had not
ensued."
It is provided by § 1904 that in the case of a trial by
jury,
"the damages awarded to the plaintiff may be such a sum, not
exceeding five thousand dollars, as the jury . . . deems to be a
fair and just compensation for the pecuniary injuries resulting
from the decedent's death, to the person or persons for whose
benefit the action is brought,"
and that
"when final judgment for the plaintiff is rendered, the clerk
must add to the sum so awarded interest thereupon from the
decedent's death, and include it in the judgment."
The action was removed by the defendant into the Circuit Court
of the United States for the Southern District of New York on the
ground that the plaintiff was a citizen of New Jersey and the
defendant a citizen of Rhode Island. The answer put in in the
circuit court contains a denial in the prescribed form, covering
the allegation of the complaint that the defendant received Clare
on the
Narragansett for the purpose of conveying him
therein as a passenger from New York City to Stonington for a
reasonable compensation paid to it by Clare. It also denies the
negligence alleged and
Page 127 U. S. 48
denies all liability to the plaintiff. It also sets up that it
had, by proper proceedings in the District Court of the United
States for the Southern District of New York, taken the benefit of
the statute of the United States for the limitation of the
liability of shipowners, in respect to the
Narragansett,
by a transfer of its interest in her to a trustee appointed by that
court. At the trial before a jury, a verdict was, by direction of
the court, rendered for the sum of $5,000, on the 20th of April,
1885, the interest was, under the statute of New York, computed by
the clerk at the sum of $1,522.50; the plaintiff's costs were taxed
at $78.25, and a judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for the
damages, interest, and costs, amounting in all to $6,600.75.
At the trial, the plaintiff called as witnesses the master of
the
Narragansett and the pilot and the engineer of the
Stonington for the purpose of showing negligence on the
part of the
Stonington. The plaintiff also called as a
witness one Fisher, who testified as follows:
"In June, 1880, I resided in Jersey City. I knew Charles C.
Clare; he was a friend of mine. On the Sunday following the 11th of
June, 1880, I went to Stonington and found the body of Charles C.
Clare, and brought the same to Jersey City for burial. What first
led me to go to Stonington was newspaper reports, and then
information coming to me, that Mr. Clare had lost his life by this
accident. I found his body in the lower part of a furniture
establishment, which was being temporarily used as a morgue."
The defendant then called as a witness a steamboat captain, and
examined him on the general question as to whether the
Stonington, at the speed at which she was running, was
going at a moderate speed in a fog, under the requirement of Rule
21, § 4233 of the Revised Statutes, which provides that "Every
steam vessel shall, when in a fog, go at a moderate speed." The
defendant also called as a witness the bow watchman of the
Stonington. After both sides had rested, the plaintiff
moved for a direction to the jury to find a verdict for the
plaintiff for $5,000. The defendant then moved that the court
direct the jury to find a verdict for the
Page 127 U. S. 49
defendant, because there was no evidence that the intestate went
on or in the
Naragansett, the evidence being that he was
dead, but there being no evidence as to how he died. The court then
suggested to the counsel for the plaintiff that he had better
prove, if he could, that the deceased was on the
Naragansett. The plaintiff was then sworn as a witness,
and testified that, on the afternoon of June 11, 1880, she crossed
over, with her son Charles, by a ferry boat, to New York to take
him to his father, and left him with his father on the New York
side of the ferry bridge, and did not herself go outside of the
ferry or to the
Naragansett. The plaintiff then called the
son Charles as a witness, who testified that on that afternoon, he
went with his father on board of the
Naragansett, and went
out on her, and was on her at the time of the collision; that his
father was with him shortly before the collision, and that he did
not see his father after the collision. The defendant then asked
the court to direct the jury to find a verdict for the defendant on
the ground that there was no evidence in the case that the father
and son went as passengers on the boat, or that they had bought a
ticket, or that they had any room, or that there was any contract
made between the parties; that there was no evidence that the
intestate lost his life in consequence of the accident; that he was
seen dead in Stonington, but that there was no evidence that any
life was lost on the
Narragansett, or that anything
happened to the intestate. The court remarked that it thought that
the evidence then in in the case was sufficient, and that it must
deny the defendant's motion, and grant the plaintiff's motion. The
defendant then asked the court to direct a verdict for the
defendant on the ground that there was no evidence that the
intestate lost his life by reason of the collision or by the
negligence of the defendant. The court denied the motion, and the
defendant excepted. The defendant conceded that if the plaintiff
could recover at all, the damages were $5,000. The defendant then
asked to go to the jury on the questions (1) whether the
plaintiff's intestate had lost his life by reason of the collision
of the two vessels and (2) whether the defendant or its servants
had been guilty of any negligence in the navigation of the
Page 127 U. S. 50
Stonington contributing to the collision. The court
denied each of these requests, and to each denial the defendant
excepted. The jury then returned a verdict for the plaintiff, by
direction of the court, for $5,000. The defendant has brought a
writ of error to review the judgment.
There has been no appearance or argument or brief in this Court
for the defendant in error, but the case has been orally argued and
a brief submitted for the plaintiff in error. A citation was issued
and duly served on the attorney for the plaintiff.
We think that the court erred at the trial in refusing to grant
the motion to direct a verdict for the defendant on the ground that
there was no evidence that the plaintiff's intestate lost his life
by reason of the collision or by the negligence of the defendant,
and in refusing to grant the request of the defendant to go to the
jury on the question whether the plaintiff's intestate had lost his
life by reason of the collision. The only evidence of the death of
the intestate was that of the witness Fisher, who testified that he
saw the dead body of the intestate in Stonington on the Sunday
following the 11th of June, 1880, which was the 13th of June, 1880.
There is no evidence to sustain the allegation of the complaint
that the intestate was drowned as a consequence of the collision,
or as to what caused his death, or as to how his body came to be
found in Stonington. The question as to whether the intestate lost
his life in consequence of the collision was at least one for the
jury, and the evidence was not sufficient to warrant the direction
of a verdict for the plaintiff on that point.
We express no opinion on the question of negligence in the
navigation of the
Stonington contributing to the
collision, or on the question of her rate of speed in the fog.
Different testimony on these questions may be given on a new trial
from that which was given on the trial now under review. Nor do we
express any opinion on the question of the sufficiency of the
evidence to show, as alleged in the complaint, that the intestate
was a passenger on the
Narragansett for a reasonable
compensation paid by him to the defendant.
The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the case
is remanded to that court with a direction to award a new
trial.