The Court then called on
Kennedy, for the respondent. The company omitted to take sufficient precautions. The fire-plug is placed in the neck of the main. In ordinary cases the plug rises and lets the water out; but here there was an incrustation round the stopper, which prevented the escape of the water. This might have been easily removed. It will be found, from the result of the cases, that the company were bound to take every possible precaution. The fact of premises being fired by sparks from an engine on a railway is evidence of negligence: Piggott v. Eastern Counties Railway Company, 3 C. B. 229 (E. C. L. R. vol. 54); Aldridge v. Great Western Railway Company, 3 M. & Gr. 515 (Id. 42), 4 Scott, N. R. 156, 1 Dowl. N. S. 247, S. C. [Martin, B. I held, in a case tried at Liverpool, in 1853, that, if locomotives are sent through the country emitting sparks, the persons doing so incur all the responsibilities of insurers; that they were liable for all the consequences.[[59]] I invited counsel to tender a bill of exceptions to that ruling. Water is a different matter.] It is the defendants’ water, therefore they are bound to see that no injury is done to any one by it. An action has been held to lie for so negligently constructing a hayrick at the extremity of the owner’s land, that, by reason of its spontaneous ignition, his neighbor’s house was burnt down: Vaughan v. Menlove, 3 Bing. N. C. 468 (E. C. L. R. vol. 32). [Bramwell, B. In that case discussions had arisen as to the probability of fire, and the defendant was repeatedly warned of the danger, and said he would chance it.] He referred to Wells v. Ody, 1 M. & W. 452. [Alderson, B. Is it an accident which any man could have foreseen?] A scientific man could have foreseen it. If no eye could have seen what was going on, the case might have been different; but the company’s servants could have seen, and actually did see, the ice which had collected about the plug. It is of the last importance, that these plugs, which are fire-plugs, should be kept by the company in working order. The accident cannot be considered as having been caused by the act of God: Siordet v. Hall, 4 Bing. 607 (Id. 13).
Alderson, B. I am of opinion that there was no evidence to be left to the jury. The case turns upon the question, whether the facts proved show that the defendants were guilty of negligence. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.[[60]] The defendants might have been liable for negligence, if, unintentionally, they omitted to do that which a reasonable person would have done, or did that which a person taking reasonable precautions would not have done. A reasonable man would act with reference to the average circumstances of the temperature in ordinary years. The defendants had provided against such frosts as experience would have led men, acting prudently, to provide against; and they are not guilty of negligence, because their precautions proved insufficient against the effects of the extreme severity of the frost of 1855, which penetrated to a greater depth than any which ordinarily occurs south of the polar regions. Such a state of circumstances constitutes a contingency against which no reasonable man can provide. The result was an accident for which the defendants cannot be held liable.
Martin, B. I think that the direction was not correct, and that there was no evidence for the jury. The defendants are not responsible, unless there was negligence on their part. To hold otherwise would be to make the company responsible as insurers.
Bramwell, B. The Act of Parliament directed the defendants to lay down pipes, with plugs in them, as safety-valves, to prevent the bursting of the pipes. The plugs were properly made, and of proper material; but there was an accumulation of ice about this plug, which prevented it from acting properly. The defendants were not bound to keep the plugs clear. It appears to me that the plaintiff was under quite as much obligation to remove the ice and snow which had accumulated, as the defendants. However that may be, it appears to me that it would be monstrous to hold the defendants responsible because they did not foresee and prevent an accident, the cause of which was so obscure, that it was not discovered until many months after the accident had happened.
Verdict to be entered for the defendants.[[61]]
YERKES v. NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO.
Supreme Court, Wisconsin, November 29, 1901.
Reported in 112 Wisconsin Reports, 184.
Dodge, J.... Plaintiff assigns as error the definition of the due care which plaintiff was bound to exercise to avert the charge of contributory negligence, viz.:—
“The plaintiff cannot recover in this case unless you find that he was in no manner guilty of any want of ordinary care, or such care as persons of ordinary care ordinarily use, which contributed to his said injuries.”[[62]]
That this was an incorrect and misleading definition of “ordinary care” has been declared so often by this court as to make further discussion unnecessary. The rule has been repeatedly laid down that due care is to be tested by the surrounding circumstances, and that no definition is complete or correct which does not embody that element.[[63]] Ordinary care is the care ordinarily exercised by the great mass of mankind, or its type, the ordinarily prudent person, under the same or similar circumstances, and the omission of the last qualification, “under the same or similar circumstances,” or “under like circumstances,” is error. Boelter v. Ross L. Co., 103 Wis. 324, 330; Dehsoy v. Milwaukee E. R. & L. Co., 110 Wis. 412; Warden v. Miller, ante, p. 67. The necessity of the omitted qualification to a correct definition of due care is especially obvious under the circumstances of this case. What would be the care of an ordinarily prudent person, standing in safety upon a stationary platform, or even standing upon the perfect and level footboard of a moving switch engine, would not be the care to be expected of one attempting to perform the services of a yard man upon a bent, declining, and defective footboard such as here presented. The attention of the jury was not called by this instruction to a very important element which they must consider in order to decide whether the plaintiff was or was not guilty of contributory negligence, and the instruction to them on the subject was therefore misleading and erroneous.