The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1893-11-18
NEW TRIAL FOR LAIDLAW.
TEE BURDEN OF PROOF SHOULD
REST UPoN RUSSELL SAGE.

M He HAD Not Been Used as n Shield
In che General Torn OF the Supreme Cour
justices Van Brunt Follett, and Parker con
Cured yesterday in decision reversing tn,
JUDGMENT OF the lower court which on June
dismissed the suit Of William II. Laidlaw. Jr.
against Russell Sage. This suit involves as in
trlcate and finely drawn distinctions and def
nitions as ever bewlldered tho minds OF ar
American jury. The min features OF the
case are as follows:
On Doc. 4. 1901 Laidlaw. then a brokers
clerk. entered Mr.. SaGes office at IL Broad.
way. Mr. Sage was standing near the entrance
to the anteroom talking to stranger who
held little satchel in his hand. Although
Laidlaw did not know 1t at tho time. this man.
who is supposed to have been the notorious
Norcross, had Just handed to Mr.. Sage q little
note asking for s1.20O.0O0 and threatening to
drop the bag. which contained ten pounds OF
dynamite. II the money was not forthcom In G
Immediately Lnidlaw entered the anteroom
and stood at some distance from the door
waiting for Mr.. Sage to get through with his
visitor.
Mr.. Sage became frightened at the behavior
OF his strange visitor and retreated into the
anteroom. BY some manipulation. upon which
the whole case rests, he got behind Laidlaw.
At that moment the stranger dropped the bag
and the room was wrecked. Both Mr.. Sage
and Laidlaw were injured. although Mr. Sage
resumed his work In few days.
Laidlaw. after leaving the hospital. accused
Mr. Sage Of having laid hands upon him and
Of having drawn him between tho stranger
and himself tSageL thus using him rs shield.
He brought suit for damages. When the case
came to trial Col L. c. James. who appeared
for Mr. Sage. contended that Laidlaw would
have been hurt Just as much II Mr.. Sage had
not touched him at all. He made lotion to
have the case dismissed upon that ground.
and Justice Andrews granted It. Through his
counsel. Noah Davis. Lnidlaw appealed from
this ruling. Aftor reviewing the story of the
explosion as Il was brought out at tho trial
the decision OF the General Term snys:
Tho plaintiff was severely injured by the
explosion. and this action was brought to re-
cover damages claimed to have been sustained
by reason Of the alleged wrongful act OF the de-
fendant in using the plaintiffs body to protect
himself from the effects OF the anticipated ex-
plosion. And the question presented upon this
appeal 10 whether this action can be MAIN
tanned.
1t is urged upon the part OF the defendant
that the plaintiffs case wholly fails to estab-
lish that the defendants action was either
wrongful or that 1t was o proxlmate cause OF
tho plaintiffs injury or an efficient cause
without which the injury would not have hap
pened. and that Norcross. being the sole cause
Of injury. SaRes act was lot proximate cause
OF the accident or Of tho damage to the plain
tin: that 1t did not even contribute to the
accident or the damage. and hence Sage is
not liable: that 1t was not even proved to be
ono OF the several concurring acts that pro- |
duced the explosion. which explosion was the |
only and sole cause OF tho plaintiffs damage; |
that the plaintiffs testimony aiflrmatively es- !
tabliRhes that his injuries were caused by the |
act OF Norcross In exploding the |
dynamite. an act with which tho defendant
was not in any way connected. and for which. |
he Is not responsible.
Numerous cases are cited to support tho |
which have been advanced and |
the principle is invoked that an act OF force |
done In necessary self-defence causing In
fury to an inn ocent bystander is ddn,aun sine
i,5ttria. for no man docs wrong or contracts |
guilt In defending himself against an aGGress-
or. In support Of which proposition attention
is called to the celebrated Squib case. which
would only tend to hold Norcross liable for the
damage which he had committed.
The defendant also cites the case OF Ring
e. Manhattan l1Ol New York, COL, Taylor VS..
"a. the village Of HammSndsport 100 New
koFk 81 aEaHs " ot the r. and and n y Canal
n support OF the proposition that when sew
sS pIoS%ats causes SEItritute to %csi.
my OF the causes. But IT cannot be attributed
'itent would not have happened
Thehe cases. however seem to US to have
'sses In which the az on arose rs to Whether
he plaintiff could recover because OF alleged
,egliGenoe OF the defendant. and the proof
mo OF which the accident might have oceurreI:
n res pect to one Of which the defendants were
he other they were not. And the court held
hat recovery could not be had unless it was
to WHIT sS
hargeaLle with negligence.
Our attention is also Gale to the language
nw. where it is laid down that the general
sinciple Of our law Is that loss from, accident
nected by the fnct that q human being Is the
: sMtrup TI' OF misfortune: And the lnngung,
an be maintained. sunjectinG. an Individual
r liability for an act done without fault on
rising from inevitable accident or. which in
Nv or reason is the same thing. from IN act
OF able to guard against is but tho misior-
ane Of the sufferer. and lays no foundation for
1.-THE case Of brown VS.. Kendall before Chief
cared that the defendant while trying to sep
|
In shoulder In the at OF striking and acci-
entally hit the plaintiff In tho eye. inilicting
pom him severe injury and in which the
curt neld that. although defendant WAS bound
y no duty to separate tho dogs yet II no was
Ding u lawful act he was not liable. unless lie
a. wanting In the care which a man OF ordl-
airy prudence would use under the circum-
ances. and that tho burden was on tho plain
II to prove the want OF such care
These cases also do not seem to us to be
pplicable to tho one ut bar. There the party
roceeded against was held to DO without
ult. and while doing II lawful act accident
ly inflicted m injury upon another. About
10 correctness of such u proposition We do
OF think there Is any room for doubt. But
10 facts OF the case Mt bar do not necessarily
ace tho defendant In the post on OF a person
ping lawful act. and thereby causing the
tin to he injurei. In consideration OF tho
stimopy offered by the plaintiff those infer.
ices which are most favorable 10 the cause OF
,tion attempted to he esta bished by him
ust necessarily be Withdrawn. and the
Hing Of the court below Gun only bo
stained in case upon no theory OF
oof the cause of action WAS made
It. The jury would. hive a right to
fer from the evidence in this case that the
fendant being In great fear lest Norcross
ould carry out the throat contained In his
-itten memo randIm to him and explode tho ]
mantle which he held in his baS. played the
N naf upan himgalf "a mi a n mn -rheIIel |