The Nevada Democrat., 1857-12-23
sunrsme Court Decision.

Supreme Court Decision.
On Wednesday last the Supreme Court rem
dered decision, in the case of Boswell d. Han
son against Laird and Chambers, which was to
ken up on appeal from this county. The suitit
will be remembered was brought TO recover dam
ages sustained by the plaintiffs, by the breaking
of the dam across Deer creek, in February last
Laird and Chambers had contracted with Moore
& Foss TO build the dam, but at the time Ine
dam broke it was not completed and had never
been accepted by Laird and Chambers On
the trial in the District Court, the counsel OF
defendants requested the Court to instruct the
Jury, that If they believed Moore Foss acted
independently, had sole control OF the work,
and the damage occurred through their negli-
genee, before the work had been accepted by
Laird and Chambers, then the jury would find
for the defendants. The Court refused; but in
structed the jury that, if Laird and Chambers
employed Moore & Foss to construct the dam
and the dam gave way on account of its imper-
feet construction, then the defendants were liza
bic for whatever injury might result. Judge
Field, in his opinion, holds that the District
Court erred in this instruction.; that during the
construction of the work, the contractors alone
are liable for damages to third parties resulting
from defects in the work, and that the liability
of Laird and Chambers must depend upon the
character of the relation between them and
Moore and Foss. We quote from the conclu-
ding portion of Judge Fields opinion:
The recent decisions of England and of New
York, appear to US to be sustained by soundr rea-
soning, aud to place the liabilities of parties
upon just principles and we only advance one
step further in the same direction, folio wing the
same reasoning, in holding, as we do, that the
liability of Laird and Chambers is not affected
by the question whether they were the owners
or not, of the land where the dam in question
was built. e
| For Injuries occurring in the progress Of the
work before its completion and acceptance, the
contractors alone were responsible to third par
/ ties: the defective construction which caused
| the injury not being inherent in the original
plan contracted for. If the mode and manner
which constituted the defect by which the nju-
ries complained of were occasioned had been in
herent in the plan, and this plan had been de-
vsed by Laird and Chambers which the con-
tractors were simply engaged to carry out. then
liability would attach to Laird and Chambers
for injuries occurring in its progress, as well as
afterwards; but this is not pretended. If the
| injuries complained OF had been occasioned az
| ter the completion of the dam by the contract
ors, and its acceptance by Laird and Chambers,
there can be no doubt of the liability of the lat
| ter. Parties for whom work contracted for is
undertaken must see to it, before acceptance,
that the work, as to strength and durability and
all other particulars necessary to the safety of
the property and persons of third parties is sub
ected to proper tests, and that it is sufficient.
! By acceptance and subsequent use, the owners
assume to the world the responsibility of its
suflicienoy, and to third parties the liability of
the contractors has ceased and their own COM
menced. In the present case the damages are,
! in fact, claimed for the negligence and unskill-
fulness of the work of the contractors before its
completion and acceptance, and it is sought to
fasten a liability for such damages upon Laird
and Chambers, from the fact that it was in their
mind that the undertaking originated and ii
was their votion which set that undertaking
| into execution. If these reasons are sufficient
to charge them then, upon the same principle
no enterprise. requiring for its execution the
skill, learning and knowledge of professional
men, could be undertaken, without risks on the
part of the original projectors which no prudent
man would take.
II follows that as the case stands before this
Court upon the record the liability of Laird
and Chambers mast depend upon the character
OF the relation between them and Moore and
Foss and the refusal of the instructions, based
upon that relation, was error; for which, new
trial must be had.
The case of Kidd and others against Laird
and others, was argued in connection with the
case Of Boswell < Hanson and az it involved
the same question, it was disposed of in the
same manner.