New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-11-18

TIE PLAINTIFF WILL HAVE ANOTHER
CHANCE At TIE MILLIONAIRE.

/
JUDGE VAN DRUXT's DECISION REVERSING THE
PREVIOUS VERDICT WILL GIVE LMDLAw
THE PRIVILEGE OF ANOTHER TRIAL.
The General Term Of the Supreme Court yes
! tcrday gave a decision reversing the decision OF
! the trial term in the suit ~ William r. Laidiaw
! 10 recover $50 900 damages from Russell sage
Laidlaw alleged that Mr. Sage used lsaidlaw
body to protect himself from the effect of the
explosion Of dynamite which the crank. Nor
cross brought to Mr. sagcs Office. The suit
was dismissed on the ground that the piainti'f
! had failed to show that Mr.. Sage's action was
! either wrongful or that II was proxirnate cause
| OF the plaintiffs injury. The principle was iaid
down that an act Of force done in necessary self
| defence causing injury To an innocent bystander
is "damnum sine injura." man being held
to be in the wrong in defending himself against
an aggressor.
Judge Van Brunt writes the General Term
decision. in which he holds that this principle
does not apply lie writes In part as follows:
"The facts Of the case do not neccss1rily place
the defendant In the position of person doing
"A lawful act. and thereby causing plaintiff to be
injured In the consideration 81 the testimony
| offered on the part Of the plaintiff. those In
fercnccs which are most favorable 10 the cause
must necessarily bc drawn. and the ruling Of
the Court below can only be sustained In case
upon no theory Of the proof. cause Of action was
| made out The jury would have "A right to in
| fer from the evidence in this that the de-
| fcndant being In great fear lest Norcross would
carry out the threat contained I'm his written
memorandum 10 him and explode the dynamite
which he had In his bag. placed the plaintin
between himself and the apprehcndcd danger
as the best possible screen which he had at
hand. Now II the defendant put his hand upon
or touched the plaintiff and caused him To
change his position with that Intent, he was
guilty Of a wrongful act toward ne plaintiff
and If the plaintiff was injured by me happening
Of the anticipatcd catastrophe. then the bur
den Is thrown upon the defendant Of establish
ing that his wrongful act did not In the slight
est degree contribute 10 any part Of the in
jurics which the plalntif sustained by reason
Of The explosion. II s not necessary for the
plaintiff 10 show that he would not have been
go severely Injured II he had been left stand
ine in his original position: but the defend
ant having wTongfuly placed him In the
changed position with the intent Of using him
as a shield. AMI he being injured by the cxplo-
sion which was anticipated by the defendant.
in order to escape liability for this wrongful
act toward the panvn in thus using him as II
shield he Is bound at least 10 show To the sat
isfactlon Of the jury. that the plaintiff would
have been injured to the same extent had he
been left untouched
There is no question Of proximatc cause The
Court cannot say. from the evidence intro
duced upon the trial. that the plaintiff would
have been injured To Just as great an extent
If he had been left untouched: and the defendant
having pcrpetratcd this wrong against the
plaintiff having done 80 with the wrongful In
tent TO save himself from injury by exposing
the plaintiff to injury. cannot be heard To say
that there Is no proof but that he would have
been injured anyhow. Being the wrongdoer In
attempting to make this improper use of the
plaintiffs body. he must clear his skirts Of
any possible Inference that some at least Of
the injuries OF the plaintiff may have resulted
from his wrongful act'