Case ID: ohio-ch_1/html/0582-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Láne, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

McGREGOR, ET AL. v. ROGERS AND KILGORE.
    Negligence — sinking boat — excuse.
    Where the defendants’ boat was negligently run upon a boat of the plaintiffs’ which she sunk-, it is no excuse that the plaintiffs’ boat might have been more safely moored in some other place.
    The imprudence of the plaintiff, in placing his property in an exposed place, affords no authority to the defendant to destroy the property so exposed.
    Case against the defendants as owners of the Lady Franklin steamboat, for negligently running foul of a flat boat of the plaintiff’s, and sinking her. (See the case, '5 O. R. 310.) Plea not guilty.
    
      Fox and Storer, for plaintiff.
    
      King and N. Wright, contra.
   Láne, J.

to the jury. If you are satisfied that the defendants’ boat negligently run foul of the flat of the plaintiffs, they are entitled to a verdict to the extent of the injury. It is not disputed but the Lady Franklin did run foul of the flat and sunk it with the cargo, for which the plaintiffs, the carriers, have had to pay. If the injury was occasioned by the careless act of the defendants* it is no excuse to show that it would have been more prudent and proper for the owners of the flat to have moored the flat in some other place. It would be most prudent in your streets to walk on the side walks, yet if I took the less prudent course and walked in> the middle of the street, I am indeed more exposed to harm, but it- conifers no right-upon a man passing with a carriage negligently to drive over me.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiffs, for 1740.