The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-05-06
AN EXHAUSTIVE OPINION
The Explosion Damage Case of
Mrs. Minnie Cameron.
TRUSTEES HELD LIABLE
For Their Acts of Omission in Failing, to
See That the Law Regarding
the Storage of Powder Was
Not Violated.

The remittitur in the explosion DAM
age case of Mrs. Minnie Cameron
against the Kenyon Connell CONNER
cial company, M. J. Connell. w. r.
Kenyon. ]. z. Gaylord and c. H. Pal
mer, was received by the clerk of the
district court from the supreme court.
The opinion attached is a long and ex-
| haustive one. AS previously reported,
the supreme court holds that the trus-
tees Of the company are liable for dam
ages to third person injured through
their acts of omission in failing to see
that the law regarding the storage of
powder was not violated by their COM
| pany. In it's opinion the court lays
down the following rule of law relative
to the liability of trustees and direct
| ors:
There are various unavoidable re-
| sponsbilities that attach themselves
| inseparab1y to the office of corporate
dictatorship, which, in case OF negli-
| gence or misconduct, often illustrates
the risks incidental to accepting such
positions of trust in a corpora ton and
! of not prudently guarding against
| their possible consequences.
The trustees manage the stock,
/ property and concerns of a corpora tion
! wherefore it is difficult to see how all
responsibility in this management can
be avoided as long as the trustees hold
office.
Third persons may hold directors
liable in positive tort upon the
| principle that a positive wrong done
by a servant or ordinary agent must
be applied to the misfeasance of di-
| rectors also.
1T is the duty of the trustees of a
corporation dealing in explosives to ex
| ercise such reasonable supervision over
| the management of their company's
! business as will result in the obser-
| vance of the utmost care on the part
| of the subordinates who direct or han
| die the explosives.
Nor will inaction by itself overthrow
| the force of this obligation upon trus-
| tees to so control their corporations
business as to not negligently injure
| third persons. Along with the assump-
| ton of the duties of trusteeship go the
duties of exercising care in the man
| ner of performing those duties. This
reasonable care appears not to have
| been exercised in this case, where the
! corporation, by it's trustees, permitted
public nuisance to be created and to
| continue whereby. as a consequence of
| the act of permitting it, a third per-
! son, not in fault. has been killed.
| Because directors are themselves
| agents it is none the less true that they
| owe a common law duty to third per-
| sons. If they violate that duty they
are responsible. whether the violation is
| the result of a wrongful omission or
| commission. Were the rule such that
| wrongful commission alone meant LA
| bility, directors statutory duties to
manage would be sufficiently performed
!
ance on a directors part of the bust
ness of his concern the more certain
his eXoneration from liability for the
| tortious acts of the company's en-
ployes. Such a rule would be I'M
healthy and unsound.
"As a matter of defense it is proper
| to show all facts by which the Jury
| can say whether the inaction or ignor-
ance relied on is a sufficient excuse
| for the wrong done. But we have no
| hesitation in saying that upon a state
| of facts like that before us. non-ex-
| ecution which resulted in the positive
! act of a creation and maintenance of
| continuing nuisance on account of
| which a third person was killed,
| amounts unless explained. to misfeas-
| ance upon the part of all the directors
| of the company, except as to Kenyon,
| who, it appears prima facie, must have
actually known of and authorized the
| IulsdIte AS " HlIl IL WAS 1HdIletS-
| ance.
"A director who knew nothing of the
| nuisance and who could not by exer-
| cising ordinary diligence in control
have known of it, or generally speak
ing, one who, considering the situa
! ton and all the attendant circum-
| stances, has performed his duty of TAX
| ing care, is not liable and can not be
| held so. In this case the defense must
| show this, however, for a prima facie
case is made by the plaintiff
After all, therefore. the question of
the personal liability of the officers of
| this corporation for the negligence
| which resulted in Cameron's death re-
! solves itself into whether or not they
| exercised reasonable diligence in the
| control and supervision in their man
agement of the corporations business
| or whether they were negligent in do
| ing or not doing so under all the cir
| cumstances of the case"