1. The terms "dangers of lake navigation" include all the
ordinary perils which attend navigation on the lakes, and among
others, that which arises from shallowness of the waters at the
entrance of harbors formed from them.
2. When a defendant -- a transportation company -- shows that a
loss of goods, which it had contracted to carry from one port to
another, was occasioned by a danger of lake navigation, from losses
by which it had exempted itself by its bill of lading, the
plaintiff may show that the danger and consequent loss might have
been avoided by the exercise of proper care and skill on the part
of the defendant, in which case the defendant will be liable
notwithstanding the exemption in the bill of lading. The burden of
establishing the absence of such care and skill on the part of the
defendant rests with the plaintiff.
Page 78 U. S. 130
3. A presumption of negligence from the simple occurrence of an
accident seldom arises, except where the accident proceeds from an
act of such a character that when due care is taken in its
performance, no injury ordinarily ensues from it in similar cases,
or where it is caused by the mismanagement or misconstruction of a
thing over which the defendant has immediate control and for the
management or construction of which he is responsible.
This case was an action against the Western Transportation
Company to recover damages sustained by the plaintiff from the loss
of eighty-four bags of coffee belonging to him which the company
had undertaken to transport from New York to Chicago. The company
was a common carrier, and in the course of the transportation had
shipped the coffee on board of the propeller
Buffalo, one
of its steamers on the lakes. The testimony showed that the steamer
was seaworthy and properly equipped, and was under the command of a
competent and experienced master, but on entering the harbor of
Chicago in the evening, she touched the bottom, and not answering
her helm, got aground, and during the night which followed kept
pounding, and thus caused the hold to fill with water. The result
was that the coffee on board was so damaged as to be worthless.
The bill of lading given to the plaintiff by the transportation
company at New York exempted the company from liability for losses
on goods insured and losses occasioned by the "dangers of
navigation on the lakes and rivers." The defense made in the case
was that the loss of the coffee came within this last
exception.
Upon the trial, the plaintiff having shown that the defendant
had the coffee for transportation and that the same was lost, the
defendant then showed by competent evidence that the loss was
occasioned in the manner above stated -- that is, by one of the
"dangers of lake navigation." The plaintiff then endeavored to
prove that this danger and the consequent loss might have been
avoided by the exercise of proper care and skill. The defendant
moved the court to instruct the jury as follows:
Page 78 U. S. 131
"If the jury believe from the evidence that the loss of the
coffee in controversy was within one of the exceptions contained in
the bill of lading offered in evidence -- that is to say if it was
occasioned by perils of navigation of the lakes and rivers -- then
the burden of showing that this loss might have been avoided by the
exercise of proper care and skill is upon the plaintiff; then it is
for him to show that the loss was the result of negligence."
The court refused to give this instruction and the defendant
excepted, and at the request of the plaintiff, gave instead the
following, to the giving of which the defendant also excepted,
viz.:
"The bill of lading in this case excepts the defendant from
liability, when the property is not insured, from perils of
navigation. It is incumbent on the defendant to bring itself within
the exception, and it is the duty of the defendant to show that it
has not been guilty of negligence."
The plaintiff recovered, and the defendant brought the case here
on writ of error.
Page 78 U. S. 133
MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the Court.
On the trial, the plaintiff made out a
prima facie case
by producing the bill of lading, showing the receipt of the coffee
by the company at New York, and the contract for its transportation
to Chicago, and by proving the arrival of the coffee at the latter
place in the propeller
Brooklyn in a ruined condition and
the consequent damages sustained. The company met this
prima
facie case by showing that the loss was occasioned by one of
the dangers of lake navigation. These terms, "dangers of lake
navigation," include all the ordinary perils which attend
navigation on the lakes, and among others, that which arises from
shallowness of the waters at the entrance of harbors formed from
them. The plaintiff then introduced testimony to show that this
danger and the consequent loss might have been avoided by the
exercise of proper care and skill on the part of the defendant. If
the danger might have been thus avoided, it is plain that the loss
should be attributed to the negligence and inattention of the
company, and it should be held liable, notwithstanding the
exception in the bill of lading. The burden of establishing such
negligence and inattention rested with the
Page 78 U. S. 134
plaintiff, but the court refused an instruction to the jury to
that effect, prayed by the defendant, and instructed them that it
was the duty of the defendant to show that it had not been guilty
of negligence. In this respect the court erred. In
Clark v.
Barnwell [
Footnote 1] the
precise point was involved, and the decision of the Court in that
case is decisive of the question in this. And that decision rests
on principle. A peril of navigation having been shown to exist, and
to have occasioned the loss which is the subject of complaint, the
defendant was
prima facie relieved from liability, for the
loss was thus brought within the exceptions of the bill of lading.
There was no presumption from the simple fact of a loss occurring
in this way that there was any negligence on the part of the
company. A presumption of negligence from the simple occurrence of
an accident seldom arises except where the accident proceeds from
an act of such a character that, when due care is taken in its
performance, no injury ordinarily ensues from it in similar cases,
or where it is caused by the mismanagement or misconstruction of a
thing over which the defendant has immediate control, and for the
management or construction of which he is responsible. Thus, in
Scott v. London & St. Catharine Dock Company,
[
Footnote 2] the plaintiff was
injured by bags of sugar falling from a crane in which they were
lowered to the ground from a warehouse by the defendant, and 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."
So in
Curtis v. Rochester & Syracuse Railroad
Company, [
Footnote 3] the
Court of Appeals of New York held that the mere fact that a
passenger on a railroad car was injured by the train running off a
switch was not of itself, without proof of
Page 78 U. S. 135
the circumstances under which the accident occurred, presumptive
evidence of negligence on the part of the company. The court said
that carriers of passengers were not insurers, and that many
injuries might occur to those they transported for which they were
not responsible, but as railroad companies were bound to keep their
roads, carriages, and all apparatus employed in working them, free
from any defect which the utmost knowledge, skill, and vigilance
could discover or prevent, if it appeared that an accident was
caused by any deficiency in the road itself, the cars, or any
portion of the apparatus belonging to the company and used in
connection with its business, a presumption of negligence on the
part of those whose duty it was to see that everything was in order
immediately arose, it being extremely unlikely that any defect
should exist of so hidden a nature that no degree of skill or care
could have seen or discovered it.
It is plain that the grounds stated in these cases, upon which a
presumption of negligence arises when an accident has occurred,
have no application to the case at bar. The grounding of the
propeller and the consequent loss of the coffee may have been
consistent with the highest care and skill of the master, or it may
have resulted from his negligence and inattention. The accident
itself, irrespective of the circumstances, furnished no ground for
any presumption one way or the other. If, therefore, the
establishment of the negligence of the defendant was material to
the recovery, the burden of proof rested upon the plaintiff.
For the error in the refusal of the instruction prayed and in
the instruction given, the judgment must be
Reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
[
Footnote 1]
53 U. S. 12 How.
272.
[
Footnote 2]
3 Hurlstone & Coltman 596.
[
Footnote 3]
18 N.Y. 543.
