Agnew v. Costa (1865) · DecisionDepot

Agnew v. Costa

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1865Published

Before: Shaeter, Shatter

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A common carrier is liable for damages to cargo unless the injury resulted from an act of God, public enemies, or the conduct of the animal, and evidence of the carrier's general care or the sufficiency of equipment is inadmissible to mitigate damages when the specific misconduct causing the injury remains uncontroverted.

Issues

Whether evidence of the condition of a steamer's boilers and the exercise of extraordinary care is admissible to mitigate damages for a carrier's liability.
Whether a common carrier can avoid liability for damages by proving the absence of negligence when the injury is not attributed to an act of God or the animal's own conduct.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The defendant was an insurer against all injury not resulting from the act of God or the public enemies, or from the conduct of the animal”

Synopsis

Liability op Steamboat as a Common Carrier. — In an action against a steamboat, as a common carrier, for the loss of a horse by the explosion of the boiler, alleged by the plaintiff to have been caused by racing with a rival steamer, evidence on the part of the defense to show the good condition of the boiler is irrelevant, both on the question of liability and of damages.

Same.—In such case, evidence on the part of the defense that the engine and boilers were strong, and that extraordinary care was used by the officers and crew of the steamer in their management while racing, is also irrelevant.

Liability op Common Carrier.—The presumption of the law is against a common carrier, except it be made to appear that the injury complained of could not have happened by the intervention of human means.

Opinion — Shatter

■By the Court, Shatter, J. This action was brought to recover damages for the loss of a stallion, by means of the negligence of the defendant as a common carrier between the cities of San Francisco and Oakland.

The plaintiff- introduced evidence tending to • prove that on the 3d day of April, 1859, he embarked the stallion on the “ Contra Costa,” at San Francisco, to be carried for him to the City of Oakland. That the horse was put by the captain of the boat opposite the boiler in the place where horses were usually stationed. That the boiler of the steamer exploded on the passage, and that the horse was so far injured by the explosion that he died on the same day. That the Contra Costa was at the time racing with a rival steamer running between the same termini; that there was betting among the passen[429]gers of the Contra Costa, which betting was encouraged by the assurances and conduct of the engineer.

The defendant offered in evidence the deposition of George W. Coffee, “ for the purpose solely of showing the condition of the boilers of the steamer.” The plaintiff objected to the evidence as incompetent and irrelevant, and the Court sustained the objection. The appellant claims that this ruling was erroneous.

Where the cause of the damage for which recompense is sought is unconnected, as was the case here, with the conduct or propensities of the animal undertaken to be carried, the carrier is subjected to the ordinary responsibilities connected with his vocation. (Palmer v. The Grand Junction Railway Company, 4 Mees. and Wels. 749; Clarke v. The Rochester and Syracuse Railroad Company, 14 N. Y. 574.) In the case at bar, the boilers were either sufficient or insufficient. If they were insufficient, proof of the fact could have been of no service to the defendant, of course ; and if sufficient, the proper deduction from the fact would be, not that the explosion resulted from the act of God, but from some fault in the management—the very cause to which it was attributed in the theory of the plaintiff’s case. The defendant was an insurer against all injury not resulting from the act of God or the public enemies, or from the conduct of the animal; and it follows that the good condition of the boilers had as little to do with the question of liability and with the question of damages also, as the condition of the rudder or the general staunchness of the ship, the misconduct charged being assumed or given.

Related research

Opinion — Shaeter

By the Court, Shaeter, J., on petition for rehearing. Petition for rehearing. The rehearing is asked for on the ground that “ the attention of the Court has been by some means diverted from the only point presented for consideration in appellant’s brief,” to wit: the charge of the Court “ that interest can be allowed against a common carrier only when it shall appear that there was fraud or gross misconduct in carrying the property or in the transaction.” The brief referred to “ invites the attention of the Court to the errors numbered four, five, six, and twelve,” in the transcript. Number four is as follows: “ Error of the Court in refusing to allow the defendant to read in evidence the deposition of George W. Coffee, and refusing to allow defendant to show the good condition of their boilers and steam engine in mitigation of damages.” Both of these questions are considered in the opinion, and both, on reasons given, were decided against the appellant, on the ground that the evidence offered was not admissible to mitigate the damages, nor for any purpose. Number five, to which our attention was also specially solicited, is as follows: “ Error in the Court in refusing to allow the defendant to prove by competent witnesses that all possible skill, care and prudence was used on the part of the agents and servants of the defendants.” That question is also discussed in the opinion and determined against the appellant. It will be observed that the assignment does not bring the error alleged into relation with the point of damages; but we, nevertheless, after disposing of the error as related to the point of the defendant’s liability, passed upon it as it stood con[432]nected with the question of damages, as is apparent on the face of the opinion.

¡Number six is as follows: “Error of the Court in refusing to allow defendant to prove that the boilers of defendant were capable of sustaining twice the amount of steam contained therein at the time of the alleged explosion, and that the engineer, master and crew of defendant were entirely without fault or negligence.” This 'point, also, is not brought expressly into relations with the question of damages, but the “means” by which we were induced idly to discuss and idly to pass upon it, though forgotten by counsel, have now become apparent.

As to the charge of the Court upon the subject of allowing interest by way of damages, we did not discuss it, for two reasons, one of which was that its correctness was indisputable, and the other was that its correctness was not disputed by counsel; and, as already stated, we held, on discussion, that the general evidence which the defendant offered of “ care,” and “ extraordinary care,” and “ of all possible care,” and to the effect that the “ boilers were in good condition,” etc., was inadmissible, for the reason that the defendant did not undertake to controvert the specific fact of racing with a rival boat for the purpose of winning bets encouraged by the engineer— holding that the theory of mitigation upon which the rejected evidence was offered amounted to this—that if it could be shown that the luxury and recklessness of racing was indulged in with “ good boilers,” strained to bursting with “ extraordinary care,” that then, and in that event, the defendant should be let off from paying interest on the value of the stud, by way of damages. On these grounds we consider that, as matter of fact, no question was discussed in the opinion except such as our attention was specially called to by counsel, and that the question which counsel conceives was entirely overlooked, was, on the contrary, entirely exhausted.

Petition,for rehearing denied.

Mr. Justice Currey expressed no opinion.

AI Brief

Synopsis

Opinion — Shatter

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

Opinion — Shaeter

AI Brief