Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1911-02-09

authority, which involved additional
liability OF serious accidents occurring,
and as did actually occur, he would be
criminally liable for manslaughter for
death resulting from such neglect of
his legal duty, provided, however, that
the accident was the result, not of or
binary mistake in judgment on his
part, but of gross negligence and plain
disregard of his duty to use due care
and skill. If he made changes in the
plans which plainly involved additional
danger to life, and which were contrary
TO all reason and experience of COM
petent architects, and which architects,
exercising ordinary care and skill,
would consider to be clearly unsafe, he
was guilty of gross negligence.
Absence of Intent No Excuse.
1T is nc defense to a charge of
manslaughter that the architect may
have been innocent of any intent that
any accident or injury should occur
If he had so intended he would be in
dictable for a higher degree of crime,
namely, murder. In all cases of invol-
untary manslaughter through negll,
gence, there is an ABSENCE OF intent to
do Injury. In such cases it IS not
criminal intent that the law Furnishes,
but gross earelessness in the per-
Torrance of a legal duty.
There is a rule of law that where
one party is negligent he is not Liable
where the duty of a second person to
exercise care intervenes between the
neglect of the first person and The in
iurx, .ubioh racttlfs from, tho paoIipoppa
The liability for the injury in such case
rests upon the second person, whose
neglect was the proximate cause of the
injury, and not upon the first person,
as being responsible for the remote
cause. (Thomas We. Winchester, 6 n.
Y, 397; Styles VS.. Long Co., supra;
Wharton on Homicide, p. 721: see also
81 L. r. A, cases cited in note on p.
29S.) Under this rule there car be nc
liability for negligence on the part Of
the Goeller Iron Works for having con-
structed the girders differently from
the provision on the plans. There is no
evidence that there was any latent de-
feet in the girders, not easily discov-
cradle upon inspection by the archi-
tect or inspector. The proximate cause
Oh Ltl6 dGClufIlls 81 a oS ~ hAoJ 49,
resulted from the changed and weak
ened Orders, was the use of them by
the architect and builder In this
changed condition. II they were defec-
tive or insufficient this was apparent
upon inspection. If they were not
made In accordance with the plans. and
as ordered, the architect need not have
accepted them.
"As to the question of any liability
on the part of the superintendent of
buildings or his inspector:
1.-THE superintendent Of buildings was
under a legal obligation, by virtue of
his office, to use due care to see that
the work was properly lone in accord
ance with the plans upon which the
permit was based.
As to the Superintendent.
"If the superintendent did not per-
sonally inspect the work, and did not
know Of any dangerous changes being
made in the plans, and could not have
known of such changes by the exercise
of reasonable diligence in the perform
ance of his duties, and if he did use
reasonable care to appoint a competent
inspector, giving him proper tnstruc-
tions to look after the work, he cannot
be held liable IL. without his knowledge,
the inspector may have neglected his
duties.
but If the superintendent actually
knew, or would. If he had exercised
reasonable diligence in the perform
ance of his official duties, have known
that the work was not being done ac-
cording to the plans, but was being
done In q manner which was likely to
cause increased danger to life, such
neglect of his official duty may be con-
sidered to be gross negligence. In
such case his negligence would operate,
to some extent. as the proximate
cause of the injury. Notwithstanding
the fact that others might also by
their negligence have contributed to
the result.
1.-THE inspector appointed by the
superintendent to inspect the work as II
proceeded was also under "a legal obli-
cation to properly perform his official
duty. If he actually knew, or could
by reasonable diligence have known of
the deviations, and that they were like
ly to cause increased danger to life,
but negligently permitted the work to
p1 oceed, without reporting the facts to
the superintendent of buildings, or
making any effort to stop the work. his
negligence would have directly con
tributed to the accident, and he would
be indictable for manslaughter.
Applying the above rules to the sit
uation, it is appar, nit that all the own
ers of the building who may have had
actual knowledge that material deyia-
lions from the plans were being made
in the actual performance of the work.
which would be likely to prove danger
Gus to life, and who. knowingly and
through gross negligence, authorized
the performance of the work in such
dangerous manner, would also be in
dictable for manslaughter. If they had
no actual knowledge as to such
changes, or did not know that they
would be likely to cause dangerous ac-
cidents, but in good faith relied upon
the architect, as their representative,
to see that the work was properly done,
they could not be held liable.
Contractor Would BE Liable.
I'm like manner the contractors who
we're executing the work would also be
indictable, If they proceeded with the
work In a name which indicated
gross negligence on their part, even
though they may have been ordered by
the architect to make deviations from
the plans. If they were guilty Of
gross negligence they canno escape
liability upon the ground that they
may have acted implicitly under the