Part 1 — CULBERTSON v. CRESCENT CITY RAILROAD CO. Supreme Court, Louisiana, April 6, 1896. Reported in 48 Louisiana Annual Reports, Part 2, 1376. (continued 2)
Reading edition
[After stating authorities.]
On the testimony for appellant the case strikes us as one of concurrent negligence; for the buggy had not gone more than from six to twelve feet after Pierce looked for a car, until the collision occurred. There is an inconsistency in appellant’s theory. He would have it that there was an appearance of danger of a collision which should have warned the motorman, as soon as the buggy was turned to go over the tracks and before Pierce looked for a car, but that appellant himself was not negligent in failing to guard against this apparent danger. That argument for appellant emphasizes and makes clear his own carelessness. The counsel in the case give several close calculations in support of their respective theories, and appellant’s attorneys endeavor to demonstrate that the motorman could have stopped the car before it reached the buggy, if he had begun to get control of it when the horse turned to go over the south track. They insist that appellant, though he may have been guilty of contributory negligence, was entitled to a finding by the jury, under proper instructions, on the issue of whether or not the motorman could have prevented the accident after the turn, it being assumed that the danger of a collision then became apparent. The court submitted that issue by a charge which was extremely favorable to appellant.
[Omitting remainder of opinion.]
Judgment affirmed.
NEWMAN v. PHILLIPSBURG HORSE CAR COMPANY Supreme Court, New Jersey, July Term, 1890. Reported in 52 New Jersey Law Reports, 446.
The plaintiff was a child two years of age; she was in the custody of her sister, who was twenty-two; the former, being left by herself for a few minutes, got upon the railroad track of the defendant, and was hurt by the car. The occurrence took place in a public street of the village of Phillipsburg. The carelessness of the defendant was manifest, as at the time of the accident there was no one in charge of the horse drawing the car, the driver being in the car collecting fares.
367The Circuit judge submitted the three following propositions to this Court for its advisory opinion, viz.:—
First. Whether the negligence of the persons in charge of the plaintiff, an infant minor, should be imputed to the said plaintiff.
Second. Whether the conduct of the persons in charge of the plaintiff at the time of the injury complained of, was not so demonstrably negligent that the said Circuit Court should have nonsuited the plaintiff, or that the Court should have directed the jury to find for the defendant.
Third. Whether a new trial ought not to be granted, on the ground that the damages awarded are excessive.
Argued at February term, 1890, before Beasley, C. J., and Scudder, Dixon and Reed, JJ.
The opinion of the court was delivered by—
Beasley, C. J. There is but a single question presented by this case, and that question plainly stands among the vexed questions of the law.
The problem is, whether an infant of tender years can be vicariously negligent, so as to deprive itself of a remedy that it would otherwise be entitled to. In some of the American states this question has been answered by the Courts in the affirmative, and in others in the negative. To the former of these classes belongs the decision in Hartfield v. Roper & Newell, reported in 21 Wend. 615. This case appears to have been one of first impression on this subject, and it is to be regarded, not only as the precursor, but as the parent of all the cases of the same strain that have since appeared.
The inquiry with respect to the effect of the negligence of the custodian of the infant, too young to be intelligent of situations and circumstances, was directly presented for decision in the primary case thus referred to, for the facts were these: The plaintiff, a child of about two years of age, was standing or sitting in the snow in a public road, and in that situation was run over by a sleigh driven by the defendants. The opinion of the Court was, that as the child was permitted by its custodian to wander into a position of such danger it was without remedy for the hurts thus received, unless they were voluntarily inflicted, or were the product of gross carelessness on the part of the defendants. It is obvious that the judicial theory was, that the infant was, through the medium of its custodian, the doer, in part, of its own misfortune, and that, consequently, by force of the well-known rule, under such conditions, he had no right to an action. This, of course, was visiting the child for the neglect of the custodian, and such infliction is justified in the case cited in this wise: “The infant,” says the Court, “is not sui juris. He belongs to another, to whom discretion in the care of his person is exclusively confided. That person is keeper and agent for this purpose; in respect to third persons his act must be deemed that of the infant; his neglects the infant’s neglects.”
368It will be observed that the entire content of this quotation is the statement of a single fact, and a deduction from it; the premise being, that the child must be in the care and charge of an adult, and the inference being that, for that reason, the neglects of the adult are the neglects of the infant. But surely this is, conspicuously, a non sequitur. How does the custody of the infant justify, or lead to, the imputation of another’s fault to him? The law, natural and civil, puts the infant under the care of the adult, but how can this right to care for and protect be construed into a right to waive, or forfeit, any of the legal rights of the infant? The capacity to make such waiver or forfeiture is not a necessary, or even convenient, incident of this office of the adult, but, on the contrary, is quite inconsistent with it, for the power to protect is the opposite of the power to harm, either by act or omission. In this case in Wendell it is evident that the rule of law enunciated by it is founded in the theory that the custodian of the infant is the agent of the infant; but this is a mere assumption without legal basis, for such custodian is the agent, not of the infant, but of the law. If such supposed agency existed, it would embrace many interests of the infant, and could not be confined to the single instance where an injury is inflicted by the coöperative tort of the guardian. And yet it seems certain that such custodian cannot surrender or impair a single right of any kind that is vested in the child, nor impose any legal burthen upon it. If a mother travelling with her child in her arms should agree with a railway company, that in case of an accident to such infant by reason of the joint negligence of herself and the company the latter should not be liable to a suit by the child, such an engagement would be plainly invalid on two grounds: first, the contract would be contra bonos mores, and second, because the mother was not the agent of the child authorized to enter into the agreement. Nevertheless, the position has been deemed defensible that the same evil consequences to the infant will follow from the negligence of the mother, in the absence of such supposed contract, as would have resulted if such contract should have been made and should have been held valid.
In fact, this doctrine of the imputability of the misfeasance of the keeper of a child to the child itself, is deemed to be a pure interpolation into the law, for until the case under criticism it was absolutely unknown; nor is it sustained by legal analogies. Infants have always been the particular objects of the favor and protection of the law. In the language of an ancient authority this doctrine is thus expressed: “The common principle is, that an infant in all things which sound in his benefit shall have favor and preferment in law as well as another man, but shall not be prejudiced by anything in his disadvantage.” 9 Vin. Abr. 374. And it would appear to be plain that nothing could be more to the prejudice of an infant than to convert, by construction of law, the connection between himself and his custodian into an 369agency to which the harsh rule of respondeat superior should be applicable. The answerableness of the principal for the authorized acts of his agent is not so much the dictate of natural justice as of public policy, and has arisen, with some propriety, from the circumstances, that the creation of the agency is a voluntary act, and that it can be controlled and ended at the will of its creator. But in the relationship between the infant and its keeper, all these decisive characteristics are wholly wanting. The law imposes the keeper upon the child who, of course, can neither control or remove him, and the injustice, therefore, of making the latter responsible, in any measure whatever, for the torts of the former, would seem to be quite evident. Such subjectivity would be hostile, in every respect, to the natural rights of the infant, and, consequently, cannot, with any show of reason, be introduced into that provision which both necessity and law establish for his protection. Nor can it be said that its existence is necessary to give just enforcement to the rights of others. When it happens that both the infant and its custodian have been injured by the coöperative negligence of such custodian and a third party, it seems reasonable, at least in some degree, that the latter should be enabled to say to the custodian, “You and I, by our common carelessness, have done this wrong, and, therefore, neither can look to the other for redress;” but when such wrong-doer says to the infant, “Your guardian and I, by our joint misconduct, have brought this loss upon you, consequently you have no right of action against me, but you must look for indemnification to your guardian alone,” a proposition is stated that appears to be without any basis either in good sense or law. The conversion of the infant, who is entirely free from fault, into a wrong-doer, by imputation, is a logical contrivance uncongenial with the spirit of jurisprudence. The sensible and legal doctrine is this: An infant of tender years cannot be charged with negligence; nor can he be so charged with the commission of such fault by substitution, for he is incapable of appointing an agent, the consequence being, that he can, in no case, be considered to be the blamable cause, either in whole or in part, of his own injury. There is no injustice, nor hardship, in requiring all wrong-doers to be answerable to a person who is incapable either of self-protection or of being a participator in their misfeasance.
Nor is it to be overlooked that the theory here repudiated, if it should be adopted, would go the length of making an infant in its nurse’s arms answerable for all the negligences of such nurse while thus employed in its service. Every person so damaged by the careless custodian would be entitled to his action against the infant. If the neglects of the guardian are to be regarded as the neglects of the infant, as was asserted in the New York decision, it would, from logical necessity, follow, that the infant must indemnify those who should be harmed by such neglects. That such a doctrine has never prevailed 370is conclusively shown by the fact that in the reports there is no indication that such a suit has ever been brought.
It has already been observed that judicial opinion, touching the subject just discussed, is in a state of direct antagonism, and it would, therefore, serve no useful purpose to refer to any of them. It is sufficient to say, that the leading text-writers have concluded that the weight of such authority is adverse to the doctrine that an infant can become, in any wise, a tortfeasor by imputation. 1 Shearm. & R. Neg., § 75; Whart. Neg. § 311; 2 Wood Railw. L., p. 1284.
In our opinion, the weight of reason is in the same scale.
It remains to add that we do not think the damages so excessive as to place the verdict under judicial control.
Let the Circuit Court be advised to render judgment on the finding of the jury.[237]
BISAILLON v. BLOOD Supreme Court, New Hampshire, June, 1888. Reported in 64 New Hampshire Reports, 565.
Case, for the negligent injury of the plaintiff. Verdict for the defendant.
In October, 1886, the defendant, while driving a horse in a carriage on a public street of Manchester, ran over and injured the plaintiff, an infant then five years old, who had wandered from his home without an attendant or custodian, and was playing in the street with other children of about the same age.
The jury were instructed that the plaintiff being too young to exercise care for himself, it was the duty of his parents or natural 371guardians to exercise care and prudence for him to prevent his being injured, and if they were negligent in this respect, and their neglect contributed to produce the injury complained of, he cannot recover. To these instructions the plaintiff excepted.
Carpenter, J. The plaintiff would be entitled to damages for the defendant’s negligent injury of his property similarly exposed to danger by the carelessness of his guardian. Davies v. Mann, 10 M. & W. 546; Smith v. Railroad, 35 N. H. 366, 367; Giles v. Railroad, 55 N. H. 555. An infant of such tender years as to be incapable of exercising care is not less under the protection of the law than his chattel. The previous negligence of the plaintiff’s parents was immaterial. The only question for the jury was, whether the defendant by the exercise of ordinary care could have prevented the injury; if she could not, she was without fault, and is not liable; if she could, she is liable whether the plaintiff was in the street by reason of, or without, his parents’ negligence. In cases of this character, where an irresponsible child or an idiot is, by the negligence of the parent or guardian, exposed to peril without an attendant, or where a chattel is in like manner placed by the owner in a dangerous position, and either is injured by the act of a “voluntary agent present and acting at the time” (State v. Railroad, 52 N. H. 528, 557), the question of contributory negligence is not involved. The only question is, whether the defendant by ordinary care could or could not have prevented the injury. Nashua Iron & S. Co. v. Nashua Railroad, 62 N. H. 159, and cases cited.
Exceptions sustained.[238]
CONSOLIDATED TRACTION COMPANY v. HONE Supreme Court, New Jersey, November Term, 1896. Reported in 59 New Jersey Law Reports, 275.
Beasley, C. J. This is a suit brought by Henry Hone as the administrator of the estate of his deceased son, who was a minor and was killed by the carelessness of the servants of the plaintiff in error, the Consolidated Traction Company, in the management of one of their cars.
The statute lying at the basis of the suit provides “that whenever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect or default, and the act, neglect or default is such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, then and in every such case the person who or the corporation which would have been liable if death had not ensued, shall be liable to an action of damages notwithstanding 372the death of the person injured,” etc. Gen. Stat., p. 1188, § 10.[239]
The following section directs “that the action shall be brought by and in the name of the personal representatives of the deceased person, and that the amount recovered shall be for the exclusive benefit of the widow and next of kin of such deceased person; and that in every such action the jury may give such damages as they shall deem fair and just, with reference to the pecuniary injury resulting from such death to the wife and next of kin of such deceased person,” etc. Id., § 11.
From these extracts from the statute it will be at once perceived that in this suit founded upon it, as in all others of the same class, but two questions are raised, and but two can be raised upon the record, viz., first, could the deceased, if he had survived, have maintained an action? and second, this being so, what pecuniary loss has fallen on his next of kin by reason of his death?
These are the facts constituting the issue to be tried, and no subject for trial can be more clearly defined.
Notwithstanding this it is contended in this case by the counsel of this traction company that they have the right to defeat the action if they can show that the death in question was the result in part of the negligent conduct of the next of kin, although such negligent conduct is not to be imputed to the infant who is deceased. The plaintiff in the present case is not only the personal representative, but is likewise the next of kin, and it is insisted that as the damages that may be recovered will enure exclusively to his benefit, he should in justice not be allowed to recover them if he was in part the cause of their production.
373But it is to be remembered that the legal doctrine that bars a party injured by the unintentional misconduct of another by reason of his having himself been, in a measure, the occasion of the resulting damage, is rather an artificial rule of the law than a principle of justice, for its effect generally is to cast the entire loss ensuing from the joint fault upon one of the culpable parties, and oftentimes upon him who is but little to blame. Such a legal regulation has no claim to extension, and to apply it as is now insisted on would be to use it in a novel way. The question whether the deceased was negligent is within the issue formed by the pleading; while the question whether a third person who in his individual capacity has no connection with the suit was negligent has nothing whatever to do with such issue. In the legal practice of this state it is the established course to exclude everything that is not embraced in the issue as the parties have framed it and as it appears upon the record. On the trial of this case the inquiry whether the father of the deceased minor had, by his want of care, been instrumental in the production of the accident, was a matter utterly irrelevant to the subject then submitted to judicial inquiry.
The statute of Iowa, relating to this subject, and our own are similar, and in Wymore’s case (78 Iowa, 396)[240] the court of that state expressed very distinctly what is deemed the correct view of this topic, in these words: “If,” says the opinion, “his parents, by their negligence, contributed to his death, that does not seem to be a sufficient reason for denying his estate relief. Such negligence would prevent a recovery by the parents in their own right.... It is claimed that, ... since they inherited his estate, the rule which would bar a negligent parent from recovering in such case in his own right ought to apply. But the plaintiff seeks to recover in right of the child and not of the parents. It may be that a recovery in this case will result in conferring an undeserved benefit upon the father, but that is a matter which we cannot investigate. If the facts are such that the child could have recovered had his injuries not been fatal, his administrator 374can recover the full amount of damages which the estate of the child sustained.”
The subject will be found illustrated by a reference to many cases in 4 Am. & Eng. Encycl. L. 88.
My conclusion is that there is no fault to be found with the trial of this case in reference to this point.
[After overruling another objection.]
Judgment affirmed.
[By writ of error to review the above judgment of the Supreme Court, the case was brought before the Court of Errors and Appeals. That court was equally divided upon the question whether contributory negligence on the part of the sole next of kin would defeat the action. No opinions on that question are reported. Consolidated Traction Co. v. Hone, 60 New Jersey Law, 444.][241]
RICHMOND, FREDERICKSBURG & POTOMAC R. CO. v. MARTIN’S ADM’R Supreme Court of Appeals, Virginia, December 9, 1903. Reported in 102 Virginia Reports, 201.
Whittle, J.... This action was brought by the defendant in error, Patrick Martin, administrator of Alice Martin, deceased, against the plaintiff in error, the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad Company, to recover damages for the negligent killing of his intestate, a daughter seven years of age, by a passenger train of the defendant company at a public crossing. The mother of the child was killed in the same collision, and the action was instituted for the sole benefit of the father, who, under the statute, is entitled to the recovery. At the trial there was a verdict for the plaintiff, upon which the judgment under review was rendered.
The defendant adduced evidence tending to prove that Patrick Martin, Jr., a minor eleven years old, and a son of the plaintiff, was put in charge of a two-horse Dayton wagon, as driver by his father, in which his mother and two younger sisters and a negro boy were to be driven from their home in the country to the city of Fredericksburg; that Patrick Martin, Jr., negligently drove upon and attempted to cross the railway track at Falmouth crossing, in plain view of a rapidly approaching train; and that in the collision which followed 375his mother and two sisters, who occupied a rear seat in the vehicle, were instantly killed. Thereupon the defendant moved the court to instruct the jury that if they believed from the evidence that Patrick Martin, Jr., the son and servant of the plaintiff, attempted to cross the track under the circumstances detailed, his conduct constituted such contributory negligence as to bar a recovery. The court refused to give the instruction, which ruling presents for decision the sole question in the case, namely, whether a father, whose negligence has contributed to the death of his minor child, can, under the statute, in an action instituted by him as administrator, suing for his own benefit, recover damages for the death of the child. The statute requires such actions to be brought by and in the name of the personal representative of the deceased person, and empowers the jury to award such damages as to it may seem fair and just, not exceeding ten thousand dollars.
The primary object of the statute in allowing an action to recover damages for death by wrongful act of another, like its prototype, Lord Campbell’s act, was to compensate the family of the deceased, and was not in the interest of the general estate, the provision being that: “The amount recovered in any such action shall, after the payment of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, be paid to the wife, husband, parent, and child of the deceased, in such proportion as the jury may have directed, or, if they have not directed, according to the statute of distributions, and shall be free from all debts and liabilities of the deceased; but if there be no wife, husband, parent, or child, the amount so received shall be assets in the hands of the personal representative, to be disposed of according to law.” Code 1887, secs. 2903, 2905.
It will be observed that by the express language of the statute the damages awarded cannot become assets in the hands of the administrator, to be disposed of according to law, if the decedent is survived by a wife, husband, parent, or child; and the recovery is also made free from all debts of the decedent, thus leaving no doubt of the legislative intent to treat the recovery as wholly independent of the decedent and his estate in the event of the survival of any one of the enumerated kin, and making it enure directly and personally to such next of kin by force of the statute, and not derivatively from the decedent, to whom it never belonged either in fact or in contemplation of law.
The authorities all agree that there can be no recovery where the action is brought in the name and for the benefit of one whose negligence has contributed to the accident. Thus, if the child in this instance had been injured, instead of killed, and the father had brought a common-law action to recover damages for the injury, contributory negligence on his part, if established, would have constituted a bar to the action. But the contributory negligence of the father would interpose 376no defence to an action by the child for such injury. The rule is that the child’s want of responsibility for negligence can no more be invoked to maintain the action of the negligent father than can the negligence of the latter be imputed to the child to defeat an action by him.
In this case both parties, at the time of the accident, were represented by agents—the defendant company by its employees, and the plaintiff, by his son, to whose care he had confided the custody of the younger sister—and both were responsible for the acts and omissions of their respective agents. Glassey v. Ry. Co., 57 Pa. 172.
In Bellefontaine Ry. Co. v. Snyder, 24 Ohio St. 670, the court said: “Where an infant intrusted to the care and custody of another by the father, is injured through the negligence of a railroad company, the custodian of the child also being guilty of negligence which contributed to the result, although the infant may maintain an action for such injury, the father cannot; the negligence of his agent, the custodian of the child, being in law ‘the negligence of the father.’”
“When an action for negligent injury of an infant is brought by the parent, or for the parent’s own benefit, it is very justly held that the contributory negligence of such parent may be shown in bar of the action, the negligence of his agent to whom he had intrusted the child having contributed to cause the injury; and such negligence, being, in contemplation of law, the parent’s negligence, was held to bar the action.” Beach on Con. Neg., sec. 131.
The doctrine of imputed negligence has no application to the case, but the rule that the negligent father cannot recover is founded upon the fundamental principle that no one can acquire a right of action by his own negligence. The principle involves a maxim of the law as old as the common law itself. The difference between an action by the father for injuries to the child where death does not ensue and an action by the father as administrator of his dead child, brought under the statute for his own benefit, is a difference in form merely, not in substance, and on principle there can be no more reason for permitting a recovery in the latter case than in the former. In both the father is the substantial plaintiff and the sole beneficiary. To allow a recovery in either would be a violation of the policy of the law, which forbids that one shall reap a benefit from his own misconduct. Accordingly the authorities are practically unanimous to the effect that the guiding principle in both classes of cases is identical, and the contributory negligence of the beneficial plaintiff will as effectually defeat a recovery in the one case as in the other.
In Kinkead’s Com. on Torts, sec. 474, the author says the rule is well settled that the negligence of a parent of a minor is a bar to an action by him to recover damages for an injury to the minor, and adds: “It may, however, be contended with equal force that the fact that a parent is a beneficiary in case of death, that contributory negligence 377on his part should be a defence to an action brought under the statutes now being considered, as well as in an action in his own name for a personal injury. The policy of the law is not to allow a recovery for the benefit of a wrong-doer, and this should be applied as well to actions in the name of another for the benefit of those who may have contributed to the wrong. What shall constitute a defence to this class of actions is not prescribed in these statutes, but is governed by the same principles applicable to personal injuries. It is considered by the majority of cases that the administrator is only a trustee or a mere nominal party, and that the action will be defeated by the contributory negligence of the beneficiaries.” [Remainder of opinion omitted.]
Judgment reversed. Case remanded for a new trial.[242]
WELCH v. WESSON Supreme Judicial Court, Massachusetts, September Term, 1856. Reported in 6 Gray, 505.
Action of tort for running down the plaintiff while driving on the highway, and breaking his sleigh. Trial in the Court of Common Pleas, before Mellen, C. J., who signed a bill of exceptions, the substance of which is stated in the opinion.
Merrick, J. It appears from the bill of exceptions to have been fully proved upon the trial that the defendant wilfully ran down the plaintiff and broke his sleigh, as is alleged in the declaration. No justification or legal excuse of this act was asserted or attempted to be shown by the defendant; but he was permitted, against the plaintiff’s objection, to introduce evidence tending to prove that it was 378done while the parties were trotting horses in competition with each other for a purse of money, the ownership of which was to be determined by the issue of the race. And it was ruled by the presiding judge, that if this fact was established, no action could be maintained by the plaintiff to recover compensation for the damages he had sustained, even though the injury complained of was wilfully inflicted. Under such instructions, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
We presume it may be assumed as an undisputed principle of law, that no action will lie to recover a demand, or a supposed claim for damages, if, to establish it, the plaintiff requires aid from an illegal transaction, or is under the necessity of showing, and depending in any degree upon an illegal agreement, to which he himself had been a party. Gregg v. Wyman, 4 Cush. 322; Woodman v. Hubbard, 5 Foster, 67; Phalen v. Clark, 19 Conn. 421; Simpson v. Bloss, 7 Taunt. 246. But this principle will not sustain the ruling of the Court, which went far beyond it, and laid down a much broader and more comprehensive doctrine. Taken without qualification, and just as they were given to the jury, the instructions import that, if two persons are engaged in the same unlawful enterprise, each of them, during the continuance of such engagement, is irresponsible for wilful injuries done to the property of the other. No such proposition as this can be true. He who violates the law must suffer its penalties; but yet in all other respects he is under its protection, and entitled to the benefit of its remedies.
But in this case the plaintiff had no occasion to show, in order to maintain his action, that he was engaged, at the time his property was injured, in any unlawful pursuit, or that he had previously made any illegal contract. It is true that, when he suffered the injury, he was acting in violation of the law; for all horse trotting upon wagers for money is expressly declared by statute to be a misdemeanor punishable by fine and imprisonment. St. 1846, c. 200. But neither the contract nor the race had, as far as appears from the facts reported in the bill of exceptions, or from the intimations of the Court in its ruling, anything to do with the trespass committed upon the property of 379the plaintiff. That he had no occasion to show into what stipulations the parties had entered, or what were the rules or regulations by which they were to be governed in the race, or whether they were in fact engaged in any such business at all, is apparent from the course of the proceedings at the trial. The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to prove the wrongful acts complained of in the writ, and the damage done to his property, and there rested his case. If nothing more had been shown, he would clearly have been entitled to recover. He had not attempted to derive assistance either from an illegal contract or an illegal transaction. It was the defendant, and not the plaintiff, who had occasion to invoke assistance from proof of the illegal agreement and conduct in which both parties had equally participated. From such sources neither of the parties should have been permitted to derive a benefit. The plaintiff sought nothing of this kind, and the mutual misconduct of the parties in one particular cannot exempt the defendant from his obligation to respond for the injurious consequences of his own illegal misbehavior in another.
Exceptions sustained.[243]
BOSWORTH v. INHABITANTS OF SWANSEY Supreme Judicial Court, Massachusetts, October Term, 1845. Reported in 10 Metcalf, 363.
This was an action on the Rev. Sts., c. 25, § 22, for an injury alleged to have been received by the plaintiff, by reason of a defect in a highway, in the town of Swansey, which said town was by law obliged to repair.
At the trial in the Court of Common Pleas, before Wells, C. J., it appeared that the injury set forth in the plaintiff’s declaration was sustained by him, as therein alleged, on the 11th of June, 1843, being the Lord’s day, in the forenoon of said day, as he was travelling from Warren (R. I.), where he resided, to Fall River, on business connected with the conduct of a cause then pending in the District Court of the United States in Rhode Island. The defendants admitted that they were by law bound to keep said highway in repair.
The judge instructed the jury, that the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover, unless he satisfied them that his travelling on the Lord’s day was from necessity or for purposes of charity; that it being admitted that his business was of a secular character, the burden was upon him to show the necessity of transacting this business on the Lord’s day.
The jury found a verdict for the defendants, and the plaintiff alleged exceptions to the judge’s instructions.[244]
380Shaw, C. J. This was an action to recover damages against a town for a defect in their highway, by means of which the plaintiff sustained a loss. It appeared that the accident occurred on the Lord’s day.
It has been repeatedly decided that, to maintain this action, it must appear that the accident was occasioned exclusively by the defect of the highway; to establish which, it must appear that the plaintiff himself is free from all just imputation of negligence or fault. Smith v. Smith, 2 Pick. 621; Howard v. North Bridgewater, 16 Pick. 189. And in these and other cases, it has been held that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, to prove affirmatively that he was so free from all fault. Adams v. Carlisle, 21 Pick. 146; Lane v. Crombie, 12 Pick. 177. The Court are of opinion that this case comes within this principle. The Rev. Sts., c. 50, § 2, provide that “no person shall travel on the Lord’s day, except from necessity or charity,” and that “every person so offending shall be punished by a fine, not exceeding ten dollars for every offence.” The act of the plaintiff, therefore, in doing which the accident occurred, was plainly unlawful, unless he could bring himself within the excepted cases; and this would be a species of fault on his part, which would bring him within the principle of the cases cited. It would show that his own unlawful act concurred in causing the damage complained of. Then if he would bring himself within either of the exceptions, he must prove the fact which the statute makes an exception. In the case last above cited, Lane v. Crombie, the verdict was set aside, because the judge instructed the jury, that after the negligence of the defendants had been proved, if they relied on want of due care on the part of the plaintiff, the burden was upon them to prove it. This was held to be erroneous, and the burden was decided to be on the plaintiff to prove herself free from all fault. On this ground the verdict was set aside, although the evidence was such that probably the direction in regard to burden of proof had not much influence.
The Court are therefor of opinion that the instruction of the judge was right, that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to show that his travelling on the Lord’s day was from necessity or for purposes of charity.
What constitutes such necessity or purpose of charity, are questions not raised by the bill of exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.[245]
381 SUTTON v. TOWN OF WAUWATOSA Supreme Court, Wisconsin, June Term, 1871. Reported in 29 Wisconsin Reports, 21.
Appeal from County Court for Milwaukee County.
Action against a town to recover damages for injuries to plaintiff’s cattle, caused by the breaking down of a defective bridge which they were crossing.
The plaintiff started from Columbus on a Friday morning with a drove of about fifty cattle, intending to take them to Milwaukee, and sell them. Stopping at Hartland over Saturday night, he resumed his journey on Sunday morning, and at about four o’clock, P. M., reached a public bridge of about seventy-two feet span, over the Menomonee River, in the town of Wauwatosa. The cattle were driven upon the bridge, and when the greater part of them were near the middle of the span the stringers broke, some twelve feet from the abutments at each end, and precipitated the structure, with the cattle upon it, into the river, causing the death of some, severely injuring others, and rendering the remainder for a time unsalable.
The complaint alleges, that the injury was caused by the dangerous, unsafe, and rotten condition of the bridge, and the neglect of the defendant to keep it in proper repair.
The answer denies the negligence charged to the defendant, and alleges that the cattle were driven upon the bridge in so careless and negligent a manner as to cause it to break; and, also, that they were so driven upon the bridge on Sunday.
After hearing the evidence on the part of the plaintiff, the Court granted a nonsuit, on the ground that the plaintiff, being in the act of violating the statute prohibiting the doing of secular business on Sunday, when the injury occurred, could not recover therefor. The plaintiff appealed.[246]
Dixon, C. J. It is very clear that the plaintiff, in driving his cattle along the road and over the bridge, to a market, on Sunday, was at the time of the accident in the act of violating the provisions of the statute of this State, which prohibits, under a penalty not exceeding two dollars for each offence, the doing of any manner of labor, business, or work on that day, except only works of necessity or charity, R. S., c. 183, § 5. It was upon this ground the nonsuit was directed by the Court below, and the point thus presented, that the unlawful act of the plaintiff was negligence, or a fault on his part contributing to the injury, and which will preclude a recovery against the town, is not a new one; nor is the law, as the Court below held it to be, without some adjudications directly in its favor, and those by a judicial tribunal 382as eminent and much respected for its learning and ability as any in this country. Bosworth v. Swansey, 10 Met. 363; Jones v. Andover, 10 Allen, 18. A similar, if not the very same principle has been maintained in other decisions of the same tribunal. Gregg v. Wyman, 4 Cush. 322; May v. Foster, 1 Allen, 408. But in others still, as we shall hereafter have occasion to observe, the same learned Court has, as it appears to us, held to a different and contradictory rule in a class of cases which it would seem ought obviously to be governed by the same principle. The two first above cases were in all material respects like the present, and it was held there could be no recovery against the towns. In the first, the opinion, delivered by Chief Justice Shaw, and which is very short, commences with a statement of the proposition, repeatedly decided by that Court, “that to maintain the action it must appear that the accident was occasioned exclusively by the defect of the highway; to establish which, it must appear that the plaintiff himself is free from all just imputation of negligence or fault.” The authorities to this proposition are cited, and the statute against the pursuit of secular business and travel on the Lord’s day then referred to, and the opinion proceeds: “The act of the plaintiff, therefore, in doing which the accident occurred, was plainly unlawful, unless he could bring himself within the excepted cases; and this would be a species of fault on his part which would bring him within the principle of the cases cited. It would show that his own unlawful act concurred in causing the damage complained of.” This is all of the opinion touching the point under consideration.
In the next case there was a little, and but a little, more effort at reasoning upon the point. The illustrations on page 20, of negligence in a railway company in omitting to ring the bell of the engine, or to sound the whistle at the crossing of a highway, and of the traveller on the wrong side of the road with his vehicle at the time of the collision, and the language of the Court alluding to such “conduct of the party as contributing to the accident or injury which forms the groundwork of the action,” very clearly indicate the true ground upon which the doctrine of contributory negligence, or want of due care in the plaintiff, rests, but it is not shown how or why the mere violation of a statute by the plaintiff constitutes such ground. Upon this point the Court only say: “It is true that no direct unlawful act of omission or commission by the plaintiff, done at the moment when the accident occurred, and tending immediately to produce it, is offered to be shown in evidence. But it is also true that, if the plaintiff had not been engaged in the doing of an unlawful act, the accident would not have happened, and the negligence of the defendants in omitting to keep the road in proper repair would not have contributed to produce an injury to the plaintiff. It is the disregard of the requirements of the statute by the plaintiff which constitutes the fault or want of due care, which is fatal to the action.” It would seem from this language 383that the violation of the statute by the plaintiff is regarded only as a species of remote negligence, or want of proper care on his part contributing to the injury.
The two other cases above cited were actions of tort by the owners, to recover damages from the bailees for injuries to personal property loaned and used on Sunday,—horses loaned and immoderately driven on that day. They were decided against the plaintiffs, and chiefly on the ground of the unlawfulness of the act of loaning or letting on Sunday of the horses, to be driven on that day in violation of the statute, which the plaintiffs themselves were obliged to show, and the doctrine of par delictum was applied. It was in substance held in each case that the plaintiff, by the first wrong committed by him, had placed himself in pari delicto with the defendant, with respect to the subsequent and distinct wrong committed by the latter, and the actions were dismissed upon the principle that the law will not permit a party to prove his own illegal acts in order to establish his case.
In direct opposition to the above decisions are the numerous cases decided by the Courts of other States, the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Courts of Great Britain, which have been so diligently collected and ably and forcibly presented in the brief of the learned counsel for the present plaintiff. Of the cases thus cited, with some others, we make particular note of the following: Woodman v. Hubbard, 5 Foster, 67; Mohney v. Cook, 26 Penn. 342; Norris v. Litchfield, 35 N. H. 271; Corey v. Bath, id. 530; Merritt v. Earle, 29 N. Y. 115; Bigelow v. Reed, 51 Maine, 325; Hamilton v. Goding, 55 id. 428; Baker v. The City of Portland, 58 id. 199; Kerwhacker v. Railway Co., 3 Ohio St. 172; Phila., &c. Railway Co. v. Phila., &c. Tow Boat Co., 23 How. (U. S.) 209; Bird v. Holbrook, 4 Bing. 628; Barnes v. Ward, 9 M. G. & S. 420.
It seems quite unnecessary, if indeed it were possible, to add anything to the force or conclusiveness of the reasons assigned in some of these cases in support of the views taken and decisions made by the Courts. The cases may be summed up and the result stated generally to be the affirmance of two very just and plain principles of law as applicable to civil actions of this nature, namely: first, that one party to the action, when called upon to answer for the consequences of his own wrongful act done to the other, cannot allege or reply the separate or distinct wrongful act of the other, done not to himself nor to his injury, and not necessarily connected with, or leading to, or causing or producing the wrongful act complained of; and, secondly, that the fault, want of due care or negligence on the part of the plaintiff, which will preclude a recovery for the injury complained of, as contributing to it, must be some act or conduct of the plaintiff having the relation to that injury of a cause to the effect produced by it. Under the operation of the first principle, the defendant cannot exonerate himself or claim immunity from the consequences of his own tortious act, 384voluntarily or negligently done to the injury of the plaintiff, on the ground that the plaintiff has been guilty of some other and independent wrong or violation of law. Wrongs or offences cannot be set off against each other in this way. “But we should work a confusion of relations, and lend a very doubtful assistance to morality,” say the Court in Mohney v. Cook, “if we should allow one offender against the law, to the injury of another, to set off against the plaintiff that he too is a public offender.” Himself guilty of a wrong, not dependent on nor caused by that charged against the plaintiff, but arising from his own voluntary act or his neglect, the defendant cannot assume the championship of public rights, nor to prosecute the plaintiff as an offender against the laws of the State, and thus to impose upon him a penalty many times greater than what those laws prescribe. Neither justice nor sound morals require this, and it seems contrary to the dictates of both that such a defence should be allowed to prevail. It would extend the maxim, ex turpi causa non oritur actio, beyond the scope of its legitimate application, and violate the maxim, equally binding and wholesome, and more extensive in its operation, that no man shall be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. To take advantage of his own wrong, and to visit unmerited and over-rigorous punishment upon the plaintiff, constitute the sole motive for such defence on the part of the person making it. In the cases of the horses let to be driven on Sunday, so far as the owners were obliged to resort to an action on the contract which was executory and illegal, of course there could be no recovery; but to an action of tort, founded not on the contract, but on the tort or wrong subsequently committed by the defendant, the illegality of the contract furnished no defence, as is clearly demonstrated in Woodman v. Hubbard, and the cases there cited. The decisions under the provision of the constitution of this State abolishing imprisonment for debt arising out of or founded on a contract express or implied, and some others in this Court strongly illustrate the same distinction. In re Mowry, 12 Wis. 52, 56, 57; Cotton v. Sharpstein, 14 Wis. 229, 230; Schennert v. Kœhler, 23 Wis. 523, 527.
And as to the other principle, that the act or conduct of the plaintiff which can be imputed to him as a fault, want of due care or negligence on his part contributing to the injury, must have some connection with the injury as cause to effect, this also seems almost too clear to require thought or elaboration. To make good the defence on this ground, it must appear that a relation existed between the act or violation of law on the part of the plaintiff, and the injury or accident of which he complains, and that relation must have been such as to have caused or helped to cause the injury or accident, not in a remote or speculative sense, but in the natural and ordinary course of events as one event is known to precede or follow another. It must have been some act, omission, or fault naturally and ordinarily calculated to produce the 385injury, or from which the injury or accident might naturally and reasonably have been anticipated under the circumstances. It is obvious that a violation of the Sunday law is not of itself an act, omission, or fault of this kind, with reference to a defect in the highway or in a bridge over which a traveller may be passing, unlawfully though it may be. The fact that the traveller may be violating this law of the State, has no natural or necessary tendency to cause the injury which may happen to him from the defect. All other conditions and circumstances remaining the same, the same accident or injury would have happened on any other day as well. The same natural causes would have produced the same result on any other day, and the time of the accident or injury, as that it was on Sunday, is wholly immaterial so far as the cause of it or the question of contributory negligence is concerned. In this respect it would be wholly immaterial also that the traveller was within the exceptions of the statute, and travelling on an errand of necessity or charity, and so was lawfully upon the highway.
The mere matter of time, when an injury like this takes place, is not in general an element which does or can enter at all into the consideration of the cause of it. Time and place are circumstances necessary in order that any event may happen or transpire, but they are not ordinarily, if they ever are, circumstances of cause in transactions of this nature. There may be concurrence or connection of time and place between two or three or more events, and yet one event not have the remotest influence in causing or producing either of the others. A traveller on the highway, contrary to the provisions of the statute, yet peaceably and quietly pursuing his course, might be assaulted and robbed by a highwayman. It would be difficult in such case to perceive how the highwayman could connect the unlawful act of the traveller with his assault and robbery so as to justify or excuse them, or how it could be said, that the former had any natural or legitimate tendency to cause or produce the latter. It is true, it might be said, if the traveller had not been present at that particular time or place, he would not have been assaulted and robbed, but that too might be said of any other assault or robbery committed upon him; for if his presence at one time and place be a fault or wrong on his part, contributing to the assault and robbery in the nature of cause to effect, it must be equally so at every other time and place, and so always a defence in the mouth of the highwayman. Every highwayman must have his opportunity by the passing of some traveller, and so some one must pass over a rotten and unsafe bridge or defective highway before any accident or injury can happen from that cause. Connection, therefore, merely in point of time, between the unlawful act or fault of the plaintiff, and the wrong or omission of the defendant, the same being in other respects disconnected and independent acts or events, does not suffice to establish contributory negligence or to defeat the 386plaintiff’s action on that ground. As observed in Mohney v. Cook, such connection, if looked upon as in any sense a cause, whether sacred and mysterious or otherwise, clearly falls under the rule causa proxima non remota spectatur.
“The cause of an event,” says Appleton, C. J., in Moulton v. Sanford, 51 Maine, 134, “is the sum total of the contingencies of every description, which, being realized, the event invariably follows. It is rare, if ever, that the invariable sequence of events subsists between one antecedent and one consequent. Ordinarily that condition is usually termed the cause, whose share in the matter is the most conspicuous and is the most immediately preceding and proximate to the event.”
In the present case the weight of the same cattle, upon the same bridge, either the day before or the day after the event complained of, when the plaintiff would have been guilty of no violation of law in driving them, would most unquestionably have produced the same injurious result. And if, on that day even, the driving had been a work of necessity or charity, as if the city of Milwaukee had been in great part destroyed by fire, as Chicago recently was, and great numbers of her inhabitants in a condition of helplessness and starvation, and the plaintiff hurrying up his drove of beef cattle for their relief, no one doubts the same accident would then have happened, and the same injuries have ensued. The law of gravitation would not then have been suspended, nor would the rotten and defective stringers have refused to give way under the superincumbent weight, precisely as they did do on the present occasion. There are many other violations of law, which the traveller or other person passing along the highway may, at the time he receives an injury from a defect in it, be in the act of committing, and which are quite as closely connected with the injury, or the cause of it, as is the violation of which complaint is made against the present plaintiff. He may be engaged in cruelly beating or torturing his horse, or ox, or other animal; he may be in the pursuit of game, with intent to kill or destroy it, at a season of the year when this is prohibited; he may be exposing game for sale, or have it in his possession, when these are unlawful; he may be in the act of committing an assault, or resisting an officer; he may be fraudulently passing a toll gate, without paying his toll; and he may be unlawfully setting or using a net or seine, for the purpose of catching fish, in an inland lake or stream.
All of these are acts prohibited by the same chapter or statute in which we find the prohibition from work and labor on Sunday, and some of them under the same, but most under a greater penalty than is prescribed for that offence, thus showing the character or degree of culpability which was variously attached to them in the opinion of the legislature. And there are many other minor offences, mala prohibita merely, created by statute, which might be in like manner committed. 387There are in Massachusetts, and doubtless in many of the States, statutes against blasphemy and profane cursing and swearing, the prevention of which seems to be equally if not more an object of solicitude and care on the part of the legislature, than the prevention of labor, travel, or other secular pursuits on Sunday, because more severely punished. It has not yet transpired, we believe, even in Massachusetts, that the action of any person to recover damages for an injury sustained by reason of defects in a highway, has been peremptorily dismissed because he was engaged at the time in profane cursing or swearing, or because he was in a state of voluntary intoxication, likewise prohibited under penalty by statute.
It is obvious that the breaking down of a bridge from the rottenness of the timbers, or their inability to sustain the weight of the person or of his horses and carriage, could not be affected by either of these circumstances, and yet, on the principle of the decisions above referred to in that State, it is not easy to see why the action must not be dismissed. On principle there could be no discrimination between the cases, and it could make no difference in what the unlawful act of the plaintiff consisted at the time of receiving the injury. We must reject the doctrine of those cases entirely and adopt that of the other cases cited, and which is well expressed by the Supreme Court of Maine, in Baker v. Portland, 58 Maine, 199, 204, as follows: “The defendant’s counsel contends that the simple fact that the plaintiff is in the act of violating the law, at the time of the injury, is a bar to the right of recovery. Undoubtedly there are many cases where the contemporaneous violation of the law by the plaintiff is so connected with his claim for damages as to preclude his recovery: but to lay down such a rule as the counsel claims, and disregard the distinction in the ruling of which he complains, would be productive oftentimes of palpable injustice. The fact that a party plaintiff in an action of this description was at the time of the injury passing another wayfarer on the wrong side of the street, or without giving him half the road, or that he was travelling on runners without bells, in contravention of the statute, or that he was smoking a cigar in the street, in violation of municipal ordinance, while it might subject the offender to a penalty, will not excuse the town for a neglect to make its way safe and convenient for travellers, if the commission of the plaintiff’s offence did not in any degree contribute to produce the injury of which he complains.”
Strong analogy is afforded and much weight and force of reason bearing upon this question are found in some of the cases which have arisen upon life policies, and as to the meaning and effect to be given to the condition usually contained in them, exempting the company from liability in case the assured “shall die in the known violation of any law,” &c., and it has been held that the violation must be such as is calculated to endanger life, by leading to acts of violence against, 388or to the bodily or personal injury or exposure of, the assured, and so to operate in producing his death in the connection of cause to effect. See opinions in Bradley v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 45 N. Y. 422.
In the case of Clemens v. Clemens, recently decided by this Court, it became necessary to consider the same question, though under different circumstances, as to what violation of law on the part of the plaintiff would bar his action in a Court of justice and leave him remediless in the hands of an overreaching and dishonest antagonist, and the views there expressed are not without their relevancy and adaptation to the question as here presented. In that case, this Court adopted the rule of law as settled in Massachusetts, favoring the remedy of the plaintiff, against the opposite rule sustained by the adjudications in some of the other States, and consistency of decision seems now clearly to require that our action should be reserved with respect to the rule established by the cases here referred to. The inconsistency upon general principle between these decisions of the same learned Court and those there relied upon and adopted, will, we think, be readily perceived and conceded when carefully examined and considered in connection with each other.
Judgment reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.[247]
STEELE v. BURKHARDT Supreme Judicial Court, Massachusetts, March, 1870. Reported in 104 Massachusetts Reports, 59.
Tort for injury alleged to have been caused to the plaintiffs’ horse by the negligence of the defendant’s servant; submitted to the judgment of the Superior Court, and, on appeal, of this Court, upon the following award of an arbitrator as upon a statement of agreed facts:—
“I find that the injury to the plaintiffs’ horse, for which they seek to recover damages in this action, was occasioned by the negligence and want of due care of the defendant’s servant, then in the employment of the defendant. At the time of the injury, the plaintiffs’ 389wagon, to which the injured horse was attached, was placed in Clinton Street in the city of Boston, by the plaintiffs’ driver, having the care of the wagon for the loading of certain articles, the weight of which in each and every package thereof was less than five hundred pounds; and the wagon was then wholly or in part backed and placed across Clinton Street, and thereby the plaintiffs were guilty of a violation of an ordinance of the city, which provides as follows: ‘And for the loading or unloading of any dirt, bricks, stones, sand, gravel, or of any articles, whether of the same description or not, the weight of which in any one package shall be less than five hundred pounds, no truck, cart, wagon, sleigh, sled, or other vehicle shall be wholly or in part backed or placed across any street, square, lane, or alley, or upon flag-stones or crossings of the same, but shall be placed lengthwise, and as near as possible to the abutting stone of the sidewalk or footway; and any owner or driver or other person having the care of any such vehicle, violating either of the provisions of this section, shall be liable to a fine of not less than five dollars, nor more than twenty dollars, for each offence.’ It is in evidence that, at the time of the injury, there was sufficient room, with proper care, for the defendant’s team to pass through Clinton Street (a greater degree of care being required by reason of the position of the plaintiffs’ team as aforesaid, but not greater than the defendant was bound to use, in my judgment), but the defendant’s servant, in passing between the plaintiffs’ horse and the opposite curbstone, ran over and upon the hoof of the plaintiff’s horse, with a heavy team, and in so doing was guilty of the negligence which I report; and I further find, that the only fault upon the part of the plaintiffs is the fact of their horse and wagon having been placed against the curb in violation of the city ordinance above mentioned.
“In case the Court shall find, under the foregoing statement of facts, that the violation hereinbefore mentioned of said ordinance, on the part of the plaintiffs’ driver, debarred the plaintiffs from maintaining their action for damages, my award would be judgment for the defendant for his costs of court, with the costs of this reference; 390otherwise, my award would be for the plaintiffs, for the sum of $225 and their costs of court.”
Chapman, C. J. The act complained of by the plaintiffs is, that while their horse was standing on Clinton Street, the defendant’s servant, while driving a heavy team along the street, carelessly drove it upon the hoof of the plaintiffs’ horse, and injured him. The award, which the parties have agreed to accept as a statement of facts, finds that the injury was occasioned by negligence and want of due care in the defendant’s servant. The terms of this finding imply that there was no negligence on the part of the plaintiffs, which contributed to the injury. And it is further found that, though the plaintiffs’ team was standing there in violation of a city ordinance, yet there was room for the defendant’s team to pass by, using due care, and the only fault of the plaintiffs consisted in the violation of the city ordinance. It is not found that this violation contributed to the injury. It is said by Bigelow, C. J., in Jones v. Andover, 10 Allen, 20, that, “in case of a collision of two vehicles on a highway, evidence that the plaintiff was travelling on the left side of the road, in violation of the statute, when he met the defendant, would be admissible to show negligence.” So the evidence that the plaintiffs’ team was standing in the street in violation of a city ordinance was admissible to show negligence on their part. It did show negligence in respect to keeping the ordinance, but did not necessarily show negligence that contributed to the injury. And, notwithstanding this evidence, it was competent to the arbitrator to find, as a fact, that, towards the defendant, the plaintiffs were guilty of no negligence, but were careful to leave him ample room to pass. He did so find in substance; and his finding is agreed to as a fact.
A collision on the highway sometimes happens, when both parties are in motion, and both are active in producing it. In such cases, the plaintiff must prove that he was not moving carelessly. But the collision sometimes happens, as in this case, when the plaintiffs’ team is standing still. In such a case, he must prove that his position was not so carelessly taken as to contribute to the collision. The fact is here found that it was not so taken, though it was in violation of the ordinance. There was therefore no such negligence on his part as to defeat the action.
Actions founded on negligence are governed by a plain principle. The plaintiffs’ declaration alleges that the injury happened in consequence of the negligence of the defendant. This is held to imply that there was no negligence on the part of the plaintiff which contributed to the injury; and to throw upon him the burden of proving the truth of the allegation. It may depend upon care exercised by himself personally, or by his coachman, if he is riding; or by his teamster, in his absence; or by the person in charge of him, if he is an invalid, or an infant of tender years, or in any way so situated as to need the care 391of another person in respect to the matter. If there was want of care, either on the part of himself or the person acting for him, and the injury is partly attributable directly to that cause, he cannot recover, simply because he cannot prove what he has alleged. Among the numerous cases sustaining this view are, Parker v. Adams, 12 Met. 415; Horton v. Ipswich, 12 Cush. 488; Holly v. Boston Gas Light Co., 8 Gray, 131; Wright v. Malden & Melrose Railroad Co., 4 Allen, 283; Callahan v. Bean, 9 Allen, 401.
But it is further contended that these plaintiffs are compelled to prove their own violation of law in order to establish their case, and therefore the action cannot be maintained. The substance of the ordinance referred to is, that for loading and unloading packages weighing less than five hundred pounds, wagons shall stand lengthwise of streets, and not crosswise, under a prescribed penalty. The plaintiffs were loading packages of less weight, and their wagon was standing crosswise of the street. But proof of the weight of these packages was not necessary. In this respect the case is like that of Welch v. Wesson, 6 Gray, 505, where the plaintiff was injured while he was trotting his horse illegally. It is unlike the cases of Gregg v. Wyman, 4 Cush. 322, and Way v. Foster, 1 Allen, 408, which were decided in favor of the defendant upon the ground that the plaintiff was obliged to lay the foundation of his action in his own violation of law. Even in those cases, the violation of law by the plaintiffs would not have justified an assault and battery or a false imprisonment of the plaintiffs. In this case, if the packages had weighed more than five hundred pounds, the position of the team would have been the same. In Spofford v. Harlow, 3 Allen, 176, it was held that, though the plaintiff’s sleigh was on the wrong side of the street, in violation of law, the defendant was liable, if his servant ran into the plaintiff carelessly and recklessly, the plaintiff’s negligence not contributing to the injury. And it is true generally, that while no person can maintain an action to which he must trace his title through his own breach of the law, yet the fact that he is breaking the law does not leave him remediless for injuries wilfully or carelessly done to him, and to which his own conduct has not contributed.
Judgment for the plaintiffs.
NEWCOMB v. BOSTON PROTECTIVE DEPARTMENT Supreme Judicial Court, Massachusetts, January 25, 1888. Reported in 146 Massachusetts Reports, 596.
Tort for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff, a cab-driver, by a collision between the cab and a wagon of the defendant.
At the trial in the Superior Court, before Blodgett, J., evidence was introduced tending to show that the defendant was incorporated 392under the St. of 1874, c. 61,[248] for the protection of life and property at fires in the city of Boston, and that the collision occurred while one of its wagons, with its regular complement of men, was responding to a fire alarm; that the wagon was proceeding along Washington Street in a northerly direction; that the cab, upon which the plaintiff was sitting, was one of several cabs standing in a line upon the easterly side of Washington Street between the easterly track of a street railway and the curbstone; that the plaintiff’s cab and horse were not drawn up lengthwise of the street and as near as possible to the curbstone, but that the horse was facing the sidewalk at an angle so that the body of the cab projected eighteen or twenty inches into the street beyond the line of the other cabs; and that the wagon of the defendant was driven negligently into the cab, causing the accident.
The defendant asked the judge to instruct the jury as follows:—
“1. If the plaintiff, at the time of the accident, was violating the ordinance of the city of Boston, to wit, ‘Every owner, driver, or other person having the care and ordering of a vehicle shall, when stopping in a street, place his vehicle and the horse or horses connected therewith lengthwise with the street, as near as possible to the sidewalk,’ that was an unlawful act, and he cannot recover in this action. 2. If that unlawful act contributed to cause the alleged injury, the plaintiff was not in the exercise of due care, and therefore he cannot maintain this action. 3. Under section 3, chapter 61, of the Acts of 1874, ‘The officers and men of the Boston Protective Department, with their teams and apparatus, shall have the right of way, while going to a fire, through any street, lane, or alley in the city of Boston,’ said defendant is not liable for an accident caused by the collision of one of its teams, while going to a fire, with a vehicle standing in the streets, in violation of either of the city ordinances. 4. If the plaintiff, at the time of the action, was violating the ordinance of the city of Boston, to wit, ‘Every driver of a vehicle shall remain near it while it is unemployed or standing in a street, unless he is necessarily absent in the course of his duty and business, and he shall so keep his horse or horses and vehicle as not to obstruct the streets,’ that was an unlawful act, and he cannot recover in this action. 5. If that unlawful act contributed to cause the alleged injury, the plaintiff was not in the exercise of due care, and therefore he cannot maintain this action.”
The judge refused to give these instructions, but instructed the jury as to the effect of a violation of the ordinance as to the position of a 393vehicle and horse while standing in a street, stating that the rule was applicable to both ordinances as follows:—
“Bearing in mind the provision of the regulation as to the position of a vehicle when not in motion, I instruct you as to the law, that if, at the time of the injury to the plaintiff, he allowed his carriage to stand in the street in violation of this ordinance, such violation is evidence of negligence on his part; and, if such negligence directly contributed to the injury, the plaintiff cannot maintain the action. It cannot be said, as matter of law, that the fact that the plaintiff was violating a city ordinance necessarily shows negligence that contributed to the injury. Whether the position of the plaintiff’s horse and carriage, in violation of an ordinance, did or did not contribute to the injury, is a question of fact for the jury; and in determining this question, the jury will take into consideration all the surrounding facts and circumstances.... The plaintiff must prove that his position was not so carelessly taken as to contribute to the collision; and the fact that his position was in violation of the ordinance is not conclusive proof of negligence which contributed to the injury. Or, stating the general rule in a somewhat different form, the fact that the plaintiff is engaged in violating the law does not prevent him from recovering damages of the defendant for an injury which the defendant could have avoided by the exercise of ordinary care, unless the unlawful act contributed proximately to produce the injury.... If, applying these rules, you are of the opinion that there was no negligence, in other words, no carelessness, on the part of the plaintiff, which directly contributed to the injury, then the plaintiff is entitled to maintain this action, if he proves another proposition; and as to that, the burden is upon him. And that proposition is, that the defendant’s servants, in the care and management of this wagon, at the time the plaintiff was injured, were negligent.”
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
Knowlton, J. The plaintiff brought his action to recover for injuries received while sitting upon his cab, from the negligent driving of a wagon against it by a servant of the defendant corporation. There was evidence tending to show that, at the time of the accident, he was violating an ordinance of the city of Boston, by waiting in a street without placing his vehicle and horse lengthwise with the street, as near as possible to the sidewalk, and that this illegal conduct contributed to the injury. There was evidence applicable in like manner to another similar ordinance, which requires every driver of a vehicle standing in a street so to keep his horse or horses and vehicle as not to obstruct the streets.
As to the alleged violation of each of these ordinances, the defendant asked the Court to instruct the jury as follows: “If that unlawful act contributed to cause the alleged injury, the plaintiff was not in the 394exercise of due care, and therefore he cannot maintain this action.” The presiding judge declined to give this instruction, and gave none which we deem to be equivalent to it. He instructed the jury in these words: “If, at the time of the injury to the plaintiff, he allowed his carriage to stand in the street in violation of this ordinance, such violation is evidence of negligence on his part; and, if such negligence directly contributed to the injury, the plaintiff cannot maintain the action. It cannot be said, as matter of law, that the fact that the plaintiff was violating a city ordinance necessarily shows negligence that contributed to the injury.” In another part of the charge it was indirectly intimated that, if the plaintiff’s unlawful act contributed proximately to produce the injury, he could not recover, but it was nowhere expressly stated.
The question before us then is, whether or not the defendant was entitled to this instruction,—in other words, whether, if the plaintiff’s unlawful act contributed to cause his injury, it was a bar to his recovery, or merely evidence of negligence which might or might not bar him, according to the view which the jury should take of his conduct as a whole, in its relation to the accident.
It has often been held that a violation of law at the time of an accident, by one connected with it, is evidence of his negligence, but not conclusive. Hanlon v. South Boston Horse Railroad, 129 Mass. 310; Hall v. Ripley, 119 Mass. 135; Damon v. Scituate, 119 Mass. 66. In recent times a large number of penal statutes have been enacted, in which the legislature has seen fit to punish acts which are not mala in se, and sometimes when in a given case there is no actual criminal intent. On grounds of public policy, laws have been passed under which a person is bound to know the facts in regard to the subject with which he is dealing, when under possible circumstances ignorance would not be inconsistent with proper care. One who sells milk must know that it is not adulterated. An unlicensed person must know that what he sells is not intoxicating liquor. Commonwealth v. Boynton, 2 Allen, 160. And if in a possible case he trespasses in innocent ignorance, the law gives him no relief. He can only appeal to the sense of justice and the discretion of the public authorities to save him from the punishment which the law would inflict. It is obvious that in suits for negligence, if the contributing conduct of the plaintiff is to be considered as a whole, it may sometimes be found that he has not been guilty of actual negligence or fault, although he has violated the law. One element of his action may be neglect of a duty prescribed by a statute, when there are other concurring elements which show that his course was entirely justifiable.
As a general rule, in deciding a question in relation to negligence, each element which enters as a factor into one’s act to give it character is to be considered in connection with every other, and the result is reached by considering all together. But, for reasons which will presently 395appear, illegal conduct of a plaintiff directly contributing to the occurrence on which his action is founded, is an exception to this rule. Such illegality may be viewed in either of two aspects: looking at the transaction to which it pertains as a whole, it may be considered as a circumstance bearing upon the question whether there was actual negligence; or looking at it simply in reference to the violated law, the act may be tried solely by the test of that law. In the latter aspect it wears a hostile garb, and an inquiry is at once suggested, whether the plaintiff, as a transgressor of the law, is in a position to obtain relief at the hand of the law. In the first view, the illegal conduct comes within the general rule just stated; in the second, it does not. This distinction has not always been observed. A plaintiff’s violation of law has usually been discussed in connection with the subject of due care.
In Bosworth v. Swansey, 10 Met. 363, Chief Justice Shaw, after referring to the rule that a plaintiff must be free from “imputation of negligence or fault,” says, in reference to unlawful travelling on the Lord’s day, “This would be a species of fault on his part, which would bring him within the principle of the cases cited.”
In Jones v. Andover, 10 Allen, 18, Chief Justice Bigelow says, “The term ‘due care,’ as usually understood, in cases where the gist of the action is the negligence of the defendant, implies not only that a party has not been negligent or careless, but that he has been guilty of no violation of law in relation to the subject-matter or transaction which constitutes the cause of action.”
In Steele v. Burkhardt, 104 Mass. 59, an action for negligence in driving against the plaintiffs’ horse, which was left standing in a street in violation of an ordinance, Chief Justice Chapman considers the general subject of the plaintiffs’ due care, and then treats particularly the contention of the defendant that the plaintiffs were compelled to prove their violation of law in order to establish their case.
McGrath v. Merwin, 112 Mass. 467, was an action founded on the defendant’s alleged negligence in starting the machinery of a mill, while the plaintiff was at work in the wheel-pit making repairs on the Lord’s day, and Mr. Justice Morton, in delivering the opinion, deals with the case solely upon the principle that Courts will not aid a plaintiff whose action is founded upon his own illegal act, and says, “The decisions in this Commonwealth are numerous and uniform to the effect that the plaintiff, being engaged in a violation of law, cannot recover, if his own illegal act was an essential element of his case as disclosed upon all the evidence.” He further states the rule in such cases to be, that, “if the illegal act of the plaintiff contributed to his injury, he cannot recover; but though the plaintiff at the time of the injury was acting in violation of law, if his illegal act did not contribute to the injury, but was independent of it, he is not precluded thereby from recovering.”
396In Davis v. Guarnieri, 45 Ohio St. 470, Owen, C. J., states, as the second of three considerations upon which the doctrine of contributory negligence is founded, “the principle which requires every suitor who seeks to enforce his rights or redress his wrongs to go into court with clean hands, and which will not permit him to recover for his own wrong.”
No case has been brought to our attention, and upon careful investigation we have found none, in which a plaintiff whose violation of law contributed directly and proximately to cause him an injury has been permitted to recover for it; and the decisions are numerous to the contrary. Hall v. Ripley, 119 Mass. 135; Banks v. Highland Street Railway, 136 Mass. 485; Tuttle v. Lawrence, 119 Mass. 276, 278; Lyons v. Desotelle, 124 Mass. 387; Heland v. Lowell, 3 Allen, 407; Steele v. Burkhardt, 104 Mass. 59; Damon v. Scituate, 119 Mass. 66; Marble v. Ross, 124 Mass. 44; Smith v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 120 Mass. 490. And it is quite immaterial whether or not a plaintiff’s unlawful act contributing to his injury is negligent or wrong when considered in all its relations. He is precluded from recovering on the ground that the Court will not lend its aid to one whose violation of law is the foundation of his claim. Hall v. Corcoran, 107 Mass. 251.
While this principle is universally recognized, there is great practical difficulty in applying it. The best minds often differ upon the question whether, in a given case, illegal conduct of a plaintiff was a direct and proximate cause contributing with others to his injury, or was a mere condition of it; or, to state the question in another way, appropriate to the reason of the rule, whether or not his own illegal act is an essential element of his case as disclosed upon all the evidence. Upon this point it is not easy to reconcile the cases. It has been unanimously decided that in Gregg v. Wyman, 4 Cush. 322, there was error in holding a plaintiff’s illegal conduct to be an essential element of his case, when in fact it was merely incidental to it. Hall v. Corcoran, ubi supra. But whatever criticisms may have been made upon the decisions or the assumptions in certain cases, that illegal action of a plaintiff contributed to the result, or was to be treated as a concurring cause, or upon language in disregard of the distinction between a cause and a condition, there has been none upon the doctrine that, when a plaintiff’s illegal conduct does directly contribute to his injury, it is fatal to his recovery of damages. Baker v. Portland, 58 Maine, 199; Norris v. Litchfield, 35 N. H. 271; Sutton v. Wauwatosa, 29 Wis. 21.
The plaintiff relies with great confidence upon the case of Hanlon v. South Boston Horse Railroad, 129 Mass. 310, in which the presiding judge at the trial refused to rule, that, “if the defendant was driving at a rate of speed prohibited by the ordinance of the city of Boston, and this speed contributed to the injury, this fact would itself constitute negligence on the part of the defendant, and would entitle the 397plaintiff to recover if he was in the exercise of due care,” and his refusal was held right by this Court. In giving the opinion, after pointing out that driving at a rate of speed forbidden by the ordinance might have occurred without fault of the driver, and might have been justified by circumstances authorizing the jury to find that there was no negligence, Mr. Justice Colt said, “It is not true that, if an unlawful rate of speed contributed to the injury, that alone would give the plaintiff a right to recover, if he was without fault.” There are intimations, without adjudication, to the same effect, in Wright v. Malden & Melrose Railroad, 4 Allen, 283, and in Lane v. Atlantic Works, 111 Mass. 136. See also Kirby v. Boylston Market Association, 14 Gray, 249; Heeney v. Sprague, 11 R. I. 456; Brown v. Buffalo & State Line Railroad, 22 N. Y. 191; Flynn v. Canton Co., 40 Md. 312.
But there is nothing in the language used in Hanlon v. South Boston Horse Railroad inconsistent with the principle which we have already stated. That decision related to the liability of a defendant. It may be, where a penal statute does not purport to create a civil liability, or to protect the rights of particular persons, that a violation of it will not subject the violator to an action for damages, unless his act, when viewed in connection with all the attendant circumstances, appears to be negligent or wrongful. And at the same time Courts may well hold that, in the sanctuary of the law, a violator of law imploring relief from the consequences of his own transgression will receive no favor.
The instruction requested in the case at bar would have become applicable only upon a finding by the jury that the plaintiff’s unlawful act contributed to cause the injury. The jury may have so found; and we are of opinion that upon such a finding, irrespective of the question whether viewed in all its aspects his act was negligent or not, the Court could not properly permit him to recover. The instruction, therefore, should have been given.
The Court rightly refused the instruction requested, that the plaintiff could not recover if at the time of the accident he was violating the ordinance, and so doing an unlawful act. This request ignored the distinction between illegality which is a cause, and illegality which is a condition of a transaction relied on by a plaintiff, or between that which is an essential element of his case when all the facts appear, and that which is no part of it, but only an attendant circumstance. The position of a vehicle, which has been struck by another, may or may not have been one of the causes of the striking. Of course it could not have been struck if it had not been in the place where the blow came. But this is a statement of an essential condition, and not of a cause of the impact. The distinction is between that which directly and proximately produces, or helps to produce, a result as an efficient cause, and that which is a necessary condition or attendant circumstance of it. If the position of the plaintiff’s vehicle was such as, in connection with ordinary and usual concurring causes, would naturally produce 398such an accident, that indicates that it contributed to it. But even in that case, external causes may have been so exclusive in their operation, and so free from any relation to the position of the vehicle, as to have left that a mere condition, without agency in producing the result. What is a contributing cause of an accident is usually a question for a jury, to be determined by the facts of the particular case; and such it has been held to be in many cases like the one before us. Damon v. Scituate, 119 Mass. 66; Hall v. Ripley, 119 Mass. 135; Welch v. Wesson, 6 Gray, 505; Spofford v. Harlow, 3 Allen, 176; White v. Lang, 128 Mass. 598; Baker v. Portland, 58 Maine, 199; Norris v. Litchfield, 35 N. H. 271; Sutton v. Wauwatosa, 29 Wis. 21.
The defendant’s third request for an instruction was rightly refused, for reasons which have already been stated. The statute referred to does not relieve the defendant from liability for negligence to a plaintiff whose unlawful act or want of due care does not contribute to his injury. In the opinion of a majority of the Court the entry must be—
Exceptions sustained.[249]
HEMMING v. CITY OF NEW HAVEN Supreme Court of Errors, Connecticut, January 4, 1910. Reported in 82 Connecticut Reports, 661.
Roraback, J. On September 21st, 1907, Ley & Company, electrical contractors, were constructing a conduit on Chapel Street in New Haven, under a contract with the United Illuminating Company, for the purpose of laying its underground system of wiring in said highway, and for that purpose had caused an excavation to be made on Chapel Street. On September 21st an automobile owned by the plaintiff, and driven by him personally, came through Temple Street in a southerly direction and ran into this excavation, causing the injuries described in the complaint. This automobile had been purchased by the plaintiff on July 27th, 1906, of one Holcombe. Prior thereto the plaintiff had owned another automobile, which was duly registered by the secretary of State, pursuant to the statute then in force. The plaintiff had not made application to the secretary of State for registration of the automobile last purchased, until September 21st, 1907, when he mailed his application, enclosing his check for registration fee, at the post-office in New Haven, to the secretary of State, by whom it was received on September 23d, 1907. On September 28th, 1907, a certificate of registration for the automobile driven by the plaintiff at the time of the accident was issued by the secretary of State, as provided for by law. The registration mark displayed by the plaintiff at the time of the accident bore the number which had been 399assigned to him as the owner of another automobile owned by him, and which had been disposed of prior to the accident.
The reasons of appeal relied upon are that the court erred in refusing to charge as requested, and in the charge as given.
The defendant requested the court to instruct the jury as follows: “The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that at the time of the accident he had the authority of the State of Connecticut to use his machine on the highways of the State, and if the plaintiff does not prove that he had such authority and license, he cannot recover, and your verdict should be for the defendant. If at the time of the accident the plaintiff did not have the authority of the State of Connecticut to use his automobile described in the complaint on the highways of the State, he cannot recover and your verdict should be for the defendant.”
The court declined to give these rulings, but instructed the jury that the plaintiff’s failure to register would not of itself bar his right to recover, since the law does not provide that one who fails to register his automobile cannot make use of it upon the highway. “The failure of the plaintiff to register his automobile cannot be held to tend to prove contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, unless you find that such conduct was illegal, and that it directly contributed to the accident upon which this case is founded; that is, unless you find it to have been the cause, or one of the causes, of this accident; and no such claim, that is, that this did directly contribute to the accident, is made in this case as I understand the contention of counsel.”
The statute relative to automobiles then in force (Public Acts of 1907, chap. 221, pp. 821 to 828), provides, in § 2, for the registering of automobiles and the placing of numbers on machines so registered. The penalty to any person having failed to register or display his number was not more than $100, or imprisonment not more than thirty days, or both.
The plaintiff was violating the statute relating to the registration of automobiles, but that fact does not relieve the defendant. This statute imposed an obligation upon the plaintiff to register his automobile, and for its violation prescribed a penalty. The statute goes no further, and it cannot be held that the right to maintain an action for damages resulting from the omission of the defendant to perform a public duty is taken away because the person injured was at the time his injuries were sustained disobeying a statute law which in no way contributed to the accident. A traveller with an unregistered and unnumbered automobile is not made a trespasser upon the street, neither does it necessarily follow that the property which he owns is outside of legal protection when injured by the unlawful acts of another. “There is some real and more apparent conflict of opinion in the many cases treating of the relation between an illegal act and a coincident injury. In doing an unlawful act a person does not necessarily put himself outside the protection of the law. He is not barred of 400redress for an injury suffered by himself, nor liable for an injury suffered by another, merely because he is a lawbreaker. In actions to recover for injuries not intentionally inflicted but resulting from a breach of duty which another owed to the party injured—commonly classed as actions for negligence—the fact that the plaintiff or defendant at the time of the injury was a lawbreaker may possibly be relevant as an incidental circumstance, but is otherwise immaterial unless the act of violating the law is in itself a breach of duty to the party injured in respect to the injury suffered.” Monroe v. Hartford Street Ry. Co., 76 Conn. 201, 206, 56 Atl. 498.