Lawrence v. Green

California Supreme Court Aug 17, 1886 No. No. 11493Published

Before: McKinstry

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A carrier is prima facie liable for injuries resulting from a defective vehicle, and the burden shifts to the carrier to prove the defect was latent or the accident resulted from an independent cause. Furthermore, a passenger's act of leaping from a vehicle in apparent peril does not constitute contributory negligence if it aligns with the conduct of a person of ordinary prudence under similar circumstances.

Issues

Whether the breaking of a coach wheel establishes a prima facie case of negligence against the carrier.
Whether the burden of proof shifts to the carrier to explain the cause of an accident once a prima facie case is established.
Whether a passenger's decision to leap from a coach in perceived danger constitutes contributory negligence.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The occurrence of an injury through a defect in the vehicle is at least prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the carrier.”

“The negligence of the defendants was established prima facie by proof that the wheel broke, and the coach was thus overturned”

“A passenger ought not to be deemed guilty of contributory negligence when he takes such risk as under the same circumstances a prudent man would take.”

Synopsis

Common Carrier—Negligence — Stage-coach—Breaking of Wheel — Evidence.—The breaking o£ a wheel of a stage-coach is •prima, fade evidence that the wheel was defective, and in the absence of evidence showing that it was sound, or that the defect was latent, and could not be discovered by examination, is sufficient to establish the negligence of the carrier, and its liability for an injury to a passenger occasioned thereby.

Id. —Burden of Proof—Defendant must Rebut Prima Facie Negligence.—In an action to recover for such an injury, after the plaintiff had shown that the accident was caused by the breaking of the wheel, the burden of proof was on the defendant to show that, the wheel was not defective, or if so, that the defect did not causo the accident.

Id. — Conduct of Person in Apparent Danger. — A stage-coaeh proprietor is liable for an injury to a passenger caused by the negligent overturning of the coach, notwithstanding the passenger contributed to the injury by his own rashness, imprudence, or indiscretion at the time of the accident, if he did only what a person of ordinary prudence would probably have done under the same circumstances.

McKinstry, J. The complaint, after stating other facts, avers: " That whilst she, said Mary A. Lawrence, was said passenger and was being carried on said coach down the Goodyear Bar hill, between said Mountain House and Goodyear Bar, at a point on said road, .... by and through the carelessness and negligence of the defendants [proprietors of the coach], said coach broke down and was overturned, by means whereof the said Mary A. Lawrence was greatly bruised and injured,” etc.

It was alleged in the answer that “ said stage-coach had reached a point on said road a short distance above said Goodyear’s Bar, and while making a short and abrupt turn therein, said coach slid or lurched to the left, and the nigh or left hind wheel was dished or broken..... That defendants do not own or have the control or any management of said road.”

The bill of exceptions shows that when the accident occurred the coach “ was being driven down grade of a mountain road more than ordinarily steep, using the brake, and upon more than an ordinary curve therein to the left and toward the mountain, about four miles down said grade, wherein the track for the wheels on the left side of the road was about one foot lower than the track for the wheels on the right side thereof; but the condition of this part of the road when the accident happened had not been changed in any respect during the period of six months next before the time of the accident in question here, and during all of which period of six months the defendants had driven their coaches over it daily, except one day in each week, and had actual notice of its condition during that period and at the time of the accident; and D. P. Oole, one of the defendants, testified ■that for some time before the accident he had considered it a dangerous part of the road,”

[419]The bill of exceptions does not show the pace or rapidity with which the horses were being driven. The evidence and the admission in the answer that the immediate cause of the overturn was the breaking of the wheel established prima facie that the wheel was defective. (Christie v. Griggs, 2 Camp. 79; Dawson v. Manchester R Co., 5 L. T., N. S., 682; Shearman & Redfield on Negligence, sec. 268, note.) There was no evidence that the breaking was caused by “ heating,” or that the defect in the wheel was latent, or that it had been examined without discovery of the defect.

The occurrence of an injury through a defect in the vehicle is at least prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the carrier. (Shearman & Redfield on Negligence, sec. 268.) The carrier must have carriages adequate to the work to which they are subjected, and must see that they are kept in due repair. (Wharton on Negligence, secs. 628, 629.) But the carrier is not liable for damages incurred through latent defects which could not have been discovered by examination, and which are not traceable to any want of good business diligence in the manufacturer. (Id. 631.)

Lawrence v. Green

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief