National Republican., 1876-01-12
KILLING BY EXPLOSIVE OILS.
responsibilities Of Manufactures - Guilty
knowledge Must Be Provsd Before the
Parties Selling Can Be Held in Damages.

Chief Justice Agnew delivered the opinion of
the Supreme Court in the case OF Eikins, BLY, &
Co. vs. Elizabeth Mexican. Tho jury in the
court below found for the plaintiff, Mrs. McKean,
whose husband had died from the effects of burns
caused, as ALLEGED, from the use Of unsafe oil
made by defendants, Elkins, BLY, Co. An ap-
peal was taken on various assignments Of error.
Following IS q synopsis Of the opinIon:
Elkins, BLY, & 20. VS.. Elizabeth Mexican. This
was an action by the widow of James Mexican
az ainst Elkips, Bly, & Co., manufacturers of re.
fined petroleum. Mexican died of burns re-
ceiyed, either from the explosion of a lamp car
ried in his hand, or from a fall, breaking the
lamp and setting the oil on fire. The action was
founded on the allegation that the defendants
willfullY made and sold the oil for lighting pur.
Poses knowing that 1t was highly inhammable,
explosive and unsafe. Tho Chief Justice, after
reviewing the testimony. says: THUS, upon the
namely, a sale Of this oil for Illuminating pur.
poses, with guilty knowledge OF its unfit and
port the submission OF the fact to the jury" This
must reverse the Judgment.
The Chief Justice refuses to sustain an assign
ment Of erTCr the substance OF which is that after
the oil had passed from the defendant, in large
quantities, 10 Arbuckle Co., and from them in
smaller quantities to Caskey. and from Caskey to
Steele and Hart, who sold the lampful to Nc
kean, there can be no recovery. The argument
In support Of this point is founded upon the al
legged successive intervening liabilities OF the
persons through whose hands the oil had passed.
But this proposition is unsound as legal defense.
The number of hands through which the oil had
pdsseu mlRnt lu1nlsn strOng argument on the
question of identity, and the guilty knowledge of
Elkins, BLY, & Co., as to this particular oil but
could not constitute legal bar to recovery If the
identity of the oil and the guilty knowledge were
made clear. Certainly one who knowingly makes
and puts on the market for domestic and other
use such q deathdealing fluid cannot claim ex-
emption from liability for his terrible wrong be-
cause he has sent 1t through many hands. The
length Of its passage may create a doubt of its
Identity, or that 1t was sent its mission of de-
structiOn with a full knowledge of its dangerous
qualities, but the facts being established he
not escape the consequences of his crime against
society. n manufacturer who sells his product as
an illuminating oil having the safe. fire test of
no Degrees when, in fact, he knows that its fire.
test will not exceed IS degrees, and that this is
most explosive and unsafe oil for domestic uss,
can plead nothing in defense Of this willful terri
Bile wrong done to confiding community. He
bears within him heart regardless OF social duty,
evtdencing malice lin its legal sense) in high
degree. But while the circuit through which the
oil has travelled may be insufficient as legal bar
the proof which sustains the fact of guilty
knowledge should be clear in proportion to the
great wrong thus charged against one who may
be innocent. We have already said that the evil
dence offered in support of the guilty knowledge
In this insufficient to be submitted to the
jury. Judgment reversed and new trial awarded.
-PutSburg (PG.) Commercial