The next question, in logical progression, is whether the plaintiff has established his case by facts and circumstances which negative the existence of any cause for the accident by which he was injured, save the negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff, as has been stated, was a locomotive fireman in the employ of the defendant. On the 25th of March, 1911, he and his engineer left Malone on engine No. 2055 for Moira to assist in bringing back a train. After arriving at Moira the engine was turned around and coupled to another engine already attached to a train, and a start was made for the return to Malone. Suddenly there occurred an explosion in the fire box of the engine which drove the doors from their fastenings, and expelled fire and boiling water into the cab, and burned and scalded the plaintiff, and blew him out of the cab to the ground with such force as to bruise him. Although this accident was of an unusual character, it will be assumed for the purposes of this discussion that it was not such an occurrence as would, in and of itself, justify the application of the maxim res ipsa loquitur, for the engine was then in the custody and control of the plaintiff and his engineer. The mere happening of the accident did not necessarily exclude the inference that it might have been caused by the negligence of the plaintiff, or without any negligence at all. It was, therefore, necessary for the plaintiff to supplement the proof of the accident with evidence tending to show that it resulted from the failure of the defendant to exercise ordinary care, either in the selection of the engine or in keeping it in reasonably safe repair. In that behalf the record discloses a number of facts and circumstances that bear upon the accident very directly and cogently. It appears that the train crews employed by the defendant have nothing to do with the care and inspection of the internal and hidden parts of the engines. That work is committed to a special corps of employees whose place of duty is in the hostelry where the engines are housed, made ready for service, and turned over to the crews designated to take them out. The engineers are charged with the duty of making a report of each trip which shall specify any needed repairs that come under their observation. The engineer Francey, who was on engine 2055 at the time of the accident, testified that he had used it on various specified dates during the month preceding the day of the accident, and that he had orally reported it as leaking, although he had been turning in written reports which made no mention of the fact. While such a circumstance might ordinarily affect the credibility of a witness, all doubt upon this subject is dissipated by the testimony of the defendant’s witnesses showing that the engine was inspected by the foreman of boiler makers on or about March 21st, 1911, and found to be in a leaky condition. Several of defendant’s witnesses testified that the engine had been in the shop at various times during the month on account of leaking flues, and that the last repairs in this regard were made two or three days before the accident.
After the accident an examination of the engine was made which revealed the probable cause of the trouble. One of the flues, which extend longitudinally through the boiler from the rear flue sheet to another flue sheet next the smoke stack, had been pushed or blown out of its socket in the rear flue sheet so that the forward end of the flue projected several feet beyond the forward flue sheet; thus leaving an opening in the rear flue sheet through which the boiling water and steam were admitted into the fire pot where the explosion was generated. There were 342 of these flues which were each 1⅞ inches in diameter and about 16 feet in length. These flues are “safe ended” into the flue sheets so that when they are in perfect condition there can be no leakage through them from the boiler. The particular flue that was blown or driven out of its place was in the bottom row of flues where there could be no inspection without taking out the “brick arch,” and that could be done only when the boiler was not in steam. There can be no doubt that the explosion by which the plaintiff was injured was due immediately to the displacement of the flue; but the cause of the dislodgement of the flue is not so clear. It is a matter of common knowledge that steam, like electricity, is a capricious and fickle agency which sometimes causes unexpected and unexplainable accidents. If the plaintiff’s case were wholly dependent upon evidence merely showing the happening of this explosion, it might be necessary to hold that he had not proved enough to give him the benefit of the maxim which he invokes. The ultimate question, therefore, is whether he has the support of surrounding circumstances which show that the accident was of “such a character as does not ordinarily occur where the party charged with responsibility has exercised the degree of care and caution required by law to avoid such a mishap.” Henson v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 194 N. Y. 205, 211. We think he has. The defendant’s foreman testified that if a flue is loose at both ends it would be liable to move from the pressure, and that if a flue is loose at one end it is more liable to move than one that is not loose. It is undisputed that defendant’s chief boiler man inspected this engine on the 21st or 22d of March and found that a number of flues, about twenty-five, were leaking. These were repaired, but the boiler still leaked on the 24th, and the explosion occurred on the 25th. Since the defendant’s experts had found loose and leaking flues which they repaired, it is reasonable to infer that the displacement of another flue within two or three days was attributable to the same cause. This was not a part of the locomotive over which the plaintiff had any control, or in respect of which he had, so far as the record discloses, any duty or knowledge. The work of inspection and repair was the work of the defendant, and any failure in this regard was its failure. The almost immediate recurrence of a condition that had led to inspection and repair was circumstantial evidence which tended to show that the work had not been thoroughly done. We think, therefore, that the plaintiff was entitled to rest upon the rule of res ipsa loquitur, and that in the absence of a satisfactory and convincing explanation by the defendant, the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
Counsel for the defendant contends that such an explanation has been made. In that regard it appears that the locomotive was of a modern and standard type; that for several months from January, 1910, it was in the main shops of the defendant at Rutland, where it was given a thorough overhauling and sent out in perfect condition; that the complaints of leakage made in the early part of 1911 were followed by prompt inspection and complete repair. This was an explanation well calculated indeed to create a serious issue of fact, but we think it would be going too far to hold that it was conclusive as matter of law. The limitations of the rule of res ipsa loquitur, and the legal effect of defendant’s explanation, were well stated in the charge to the jury, and we think the judgment entered on the verdict must stand.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, and Cardozo, JJ., concur; Hornblower, J., not sitting.
Judgment affirmed.[[99]]
WING v. LONDON GENERAL OMNIBUS CO.
In the Court of Appeal, July 16, 1909.
Reported in [1909] 2 King’s Bench, 652.
Fletcher Moulton, L. J., read the following judgment:[[100]]—This is an appeal from the judgment delivered by the judge of the county court of Middlesex held in Clerkenwell in an action in which the plaintiff sued for damages resulting from an accident which occurred while she was a passenger in a motor omnibus belonging to the defendants.
The plaintiff’s claim was based on two alternative grounds: (1) that the defendants’ servants, whilst in charge of the motor omnibus, were guilty of negligence causing the accident, and (2) that the motor omnibus was itself a dangerous machine, and that the defendants were liable for having placed it upon the roadway, thereby creating a nuisance, whereby the plaintiff suffered damage.
The evidence given at the trial as to the nature and circumstances of the accident was meagre in the extreme. The plaintiff deposed to nothing more than that she was a passenger in the omnibus, and that she heard breaking of glass, and knew that the omnibus had hit something, and that she heard something fall. She tried to get out, and, in so doing, hurt her foot. No other witness was called who was present at the time of the accident, but evidence was given on her behalf by a police constable, who came up afterwards, and proved that an electric standard had been broken in the accident, and that the hind step of the motor omnibus had been slightly bent. No other damage had been caused to the omnibus. He also proved that the road was in a greasy state at the time by reason of rain that had fallen during the day. He was asked by the plaintiff’s counsel as to certain admissions made to him at the time by the driver and conductor of the omnibus, and proved that they stated to him that the hind part of the omnibus skidded, when going about five miles an hour, while the driver was trying to avoid two other vehicles. The defendants called no evidence except as to the quantum of damage. At the end of the plaintiff’s case, counsel for the defendants submitted that there was no evidence, either of negligence or of nuisance, to go to the jury, and the learned judge gave partial effect to that contention by withdrawing from the jury the question of negligence in the driving or management of the car. The plaintiff did not take exception to this by giving a cross notice of appeal, nor was the point raised before the Divisional Court, and it is not, in my opinion, open to her counsel to raise it now. But, apart from this, I am of opinion that the learned judge was right in so doing. There was no evidence whatever that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the servants of the defendants who were in charge of the omnibus, unless the mere occurrence of the accident amounts to such evidence. In my opinion the mere occurrence of such an accident is not in itself evidence of negligence. Without attempting to lay down any exhaustive classification of the cases in which the principle of res ipsa loquitur applies, it may generally be said that the principle only applies when the direct cause of the accident, and so much of the surrounding circumstances as was essential to its occurrence, were within the sole control and management of the defendants, or their servants, so that it is not unfair to attribute to them a prima facie responsibility for what happened. An accident in the case of traffic on a highway is in marked contrast to such a condition of things. Every vehicle has to adapt its own behaviour to the behaviour of other persons using the road, and over their actions those in charge of the vehicle have no control. Hence the fact that an accident has happened either to or through a particular vehicle is by itself no evidence that the fault, if any, which led to it was committed by those in charge of that vehicle. Exceptional cases may occur in which the peculiar nature of the accident may throw light upon the question on whom the responsibility lies, but there is nothing of the kind here. The collision with the electric standard was due to the omnibus skidding, and, if we are to give any weight to the admissions made by the defendants’ servants which were proved in evidence in chief as part of the plaintiff’s case, that skidding was due to difficulties in avoiding other vehicles. There is certainly no evidence to negative such a probable explanation of what actually happened, and it is impossible to say that this points to negligence, or that it establishes that any negligent act of the defendants’ servant was the cause of the accident. I am therefore of opinion that the learned judge acted rightly in withdrawing from the jury the issue as to the accident being due to negligence of the defendants’ servants in the driving or management of the vehicle.[[101]]