Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1911-02-09
CHARGES ON
THREE DISASTERS
Continued from First Page,

tOOntiDued from First PHxe.1
the original roof plan had been carried
out, and that the weight of two-thirds
OF the dome, which was not removed,
n a large portion of the roof was
concentrated upon the 15-inch T.
beams that were boited to the bottom
cord on the south side of the girder,
making an unequal distribution Of the
0 on the girder. causing it to sway,
buckle and fall to the floor below, car
rying the rest of the roof with It.
During h progress of the work it
was under the inspection of an inspec-
tor representing the superintendent Of
buildings, Mr.. O'Rourke, in accordance
with the requirements of the city or
dinanees and rules of the department
of buildings. 1t was the duty of the
inspector and of the superintendent of
buildings to see hat the work was
done in accordance with the plans, as
submitted and approved by the Com
mon Council.
Il am not informed as to whether
Mr.. ORourke personally inspected 1T
at all, or gave the matter any per-
sonal attention, further than TO send
his representative there to inspect the
work.
No Defects Indicated.
The facts, SO far as they are known
TO me, do not indicate that there were
any serious defects in the method or
plan of the work, as shown on the
original plans and specifications, or at
least none which were so serious as
h a they may be reasonably considered
to have contributed to any extent in
causing the accident. 1t seems prob
able that if the plans, as originally
drawn and approved by the Common
Council, had been adhered to in the
actual performance of the work, the
accident would not have occurred.
Even If the plans were not the
safest that might have been devised,
but were reasonably safe, their APP
proval by the superintendent of build
ings and the Common Council must be
considered as sufficient to absolve he
architect and all others responsible for
the proper performance of the work
from any charge of criminal negligence,
so lar as the suff1ciency of the original
plans is concerned.
If tie work had been proceeded with
as provided in the plans, or with no
deviation therefrom involving ad-
d.t.Onal danger, and if there was no
gross carelessness or neglect in doing
the work, no one would be criminally
liable, although the roof did collapse,
causing the death.
1T cannot be doubted that the work
in question required great skill and
care for its proper and safe perform
ance, and hat failure to use proper
care would be very likely to endanger
life.
Must Consider Kind of Work.
'In considering whether or not gross
negligence is shown in any given case,
it is important to consider the nature
OF the proposed work, it's magnitude,
the probability Of accident, which
would result from failure to execute
the work in a skillful and careful nan
ner, and whether, in case of accident,
1t would be the natural and probable
consequence that human life would be
endangered. The degree Of care re-
quired must be proportionate to the
danger involved.
IF you find that the facts, as you
shall learn them from the witnesses
brought before you, indicate that the
probabilities are that some of the per-
sons who were in charge of h work
and who were responsible for its
proper performance, were guilty OF
carelessness or neglect, which, consider
ing the nature of the work, was so
great as to warrant h conclusion that
they were reckless or Indifferent as to
the dangers to which the workmen, or
others who might be on the premises,
were thus exposed, you will next pro-
coed to ascertain whether such persons
were under any legal duty which they
negligently violated, for, unless they
were under such legal duty they could
not be held responsible for any result
that might have happened.
Must Have owed n Duty.
'"There can be no liability for homi-
eide occurring by reason of negligent
performance or omission of an act, UNI
less the persons guilty of such neglect
at that time owed a duty, specially i'm
posed upon them, as to the per-
son injured. This need not be i'm
posed by contract, or arise from any
c~ontractual relations. Independent on
any contract, the law imposes a public
duty in all cases where a party is en-
gagged in performing an act which, In
its nature, or under the circumstances,
is highly dangerous to the lives of per-
sons known or unknown, or who uses
some article which, though not in Its
nature dangerous, Is dangerous In the
manner in which he Is using 1t. In
such case he must exercise a high de-
gree of care, and If he omits to do so,
he is answerable for the ~ill-conse-
Quences to others that are the natural
and proximate result of his default.
Wan Wrinkle VS.. American Steam
Boiler Company. 20 W., 246; Style Va.
Long Company, Al, Vr., 301; People vs..
Buddensieck. 1903 N. Y, 487).
"Mr. Lehman, the architect in charge,
must be held to have been bound to
ese such skill and knowledge as were
reasonably necessary for the proper
of the work which he I'M
dertook to do.
TT was undoubtedly his legal duty
10 use due care and skill to see that
this important work should be so per-
formed as that no one r%ightfully on
the premises should be injured by the
collapse and fall of the roof during the
of the work; If the accident
was due to the fact hat changes in
the plans as originally drawn and ap-
were made by him, or under his