Case Name: FREDERICK A. DUNN, Appellant, v. THE NEW HAVEN STEAMBOAT COMPANY, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-12
Citations: 65 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 461
Docket Number: 
Parties: FREDERICK A. DUNN, Appellant, v. THE NEW HAVEN STEAMBOAT COMPANY, Respondent.
Judges: Beady, J., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 65
Pages: 461–466

Head Matter:
FREDERICK A. DUNN, Appellant, v. THE NEW HAVEN STEAMBOAT COMPANY, Respondent.
Loss of money and chattels from his berth by a passenger, through the negligence of a steamboat company—charge of the court in reference to the plaintiff’s negligence.
A passenger on a steamboat retired for the night to his birth, where he had with him seventy-three dollars in bills, a gold watch worth sixty or seventy dollars; a gold pen and pencil worth three dollars; railroad tickets for which he paid six or seven dollars, and a silver watch whose value was unknown. These articles he placed in his vest, which was put under his pillow, and when he awoke in the morning the vest and these articles had been stolen.
In an action brought to recover their value from the steamboat company, it was charged that the loss had arisen through the negligence of the persons in charge of the steamer.
The court charged the jury that if they found, that it was a negligent act for the passenger to have this amount of money in his berth under the circumstances, instead of giving it to the employees of the company to take care of, that the defendant was entitled to a verdict.
B.eld, that this charge was erroneous; that even if it was negligence for the plaintiff to have this money in his berth, it in no degree contributed to the loss of the other articles which he had in his vest, nor did, it affect his right to recover their value.
The court also charged that the plaintiff had a right to carry these things with him on his trip, but not to retain them in his berth.
Held that under this charge the jury might have inferred that the plaintiff had no cause of action because of his having taken these articles into his berth, and that the charge was erroneous. (Van Brunt, P. J., dissenting.)
Appeal by tbe plaintiff Frederick. A.'Dunn from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 28th day of March, 1890, dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint, with costs; and also from an order denying a motion for a new trial, made on the minutes of the court and entered in the office of the clerk of said county on the 26th day of March, 1890, after a trial at the New York Circuit before the court and a jury, at which a verdict was rendered in favor of the defendant.
The action was brought to recover certain money, and. the value of certain chattels, which were lost by the plaintiff while he was a passenger on the defendant’s steamboat, “ Elm City,” on a voyage from New York to New.Haven, in the. night-time, which loss was alleged to hav<j been occasioned through the negligence of the defendant.
Hyland <& Zabrislde, for the appellant.
William J. Kelley, fer the respondent.

Opinion:
Daniels, J.:
The plaintiff was a passenger on the defendant's steamer from the city of New York to New Haven. He paid his passage-money and received a ticket for the trip, with the number of his berth on its back. He testified that he had with him when he retired seventy-three dollars, in bills; a gold watch, worth sixty or seventy dollars; a gold pen and pencil for which he paid three dollars; railroad tickets, for which he paid six or seven dollars, and a silver watch he had repaired for his brother, for which no value was given, and that these articles were in his vest and placed under his pillow. And that when he awoke in the morning the vest and those articles had been stolen. This evidence was not contradicted.
It was charged in the complaint that the loss was owing to the negligence of the persons in charge of the steamer, which was denied by the defendant. And whether the charge had been sustained was a question for and submitted to the jury. In its submission by the court the legal rules on which the action depended were plainly and clearly brought to the attention of the jury. But, as is usually the fact, that satisfied neither of the counsel. And each requested further intructions, some of which they were not entitled to have submitted to the jury. Among these requests was one by the defendant's counsel in which the court was asked to charge: That if the jury believe the plaintiff was guilty of negligence in disposing of his property in the way he did it is a bar to his recovery. And that was answered by the court:
I so charge. If you find that it was a negligent act for him to have this amount of money in his berth, under the circumstances, instead of giving it to the employees of the company to take care of, if you find affirmatively that that was negligence, then the defendant is entitled to a verdict.
And to that the plaintiff excepted. It did not follow, even if it was negligent for the plaintiff to have this money, which amounted to seventy-three dollars, in his berth, that he should be thereby defeated altogether in his action.. Yet the court so instructed the jury. The direction gave them to understand that the plaintiff must be defeated, if it was negligent for him to have that money in his berth, even though the theft had resulted from the carelessness and inattention of the persons in charge of the business of the steamer. This was an erroneous direction, for such negligence on his part in no way contributed to the residue of the loss, or affected his right to recover the value of the gold watch, the gold pen and pencil, and the railroad tickets, which it was not negligent to carry in this manner.
The court was also requested by the plaintiff's counsel to charge that a passenger on such a steamboat has a right, when he retires, to retain such articles as those the plaintiff had in his possession at the time of retiring. That, the court at first left " it to the jury to say whether, under all the circumstances, that would be justified." The counsel then asked the court again to charge that proposition, and the response was: " He has a right to carry them with him on his trip, but not to retain them in his berth." . And to that the plaintiff's counsel excepted. The jurors may be assumed to have been men of plain sense and experience, who would not consider the charge qualified with these particular directions with the legal acumen of persons having a long course of professional training. But they would be very hable to be impressed with the conviction that the plaintifE had no ground of action because of his improper conduct in taking these articles into his berth. The statement was without qualification that he had no right to retain these articles in his berth. And it followed from that direction, as jurors would commonly understand it, that he had no right to complain of their loss by theft. These directions were so plainly given that the jury was not liable to misunderstand them or to fail to act upon them. And their attention would not be diverted from them by what had been very properly said to them previously in the charge. They were the last directions, and as they were so plainly given, must have improperly determined the jury against the plaintiff.
The judgment and order should, therefore, be reversed and a new trial directed, with costs to the plaintiff to abide the result.
Beady, J., concurred.