Case Name: Louis G. Hart, Appellant, v. The North German Lloyd Steamship Co., Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1905-02
Citations: 46 Misc. 426
Docket Number: 
Parties: Louis G. Hart, Appellant, v. The North German Lloyd Steamship Co., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 426–430

Head Matter:
Louis G. Hart, Appellant, v. The North German Lloyd Steamship Co., Respondent.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
February, 1905.)
Carrier — Steamship company — Passenger’s property lost from stateroom.
In the absence of negligence on the part of a passenger, a steamship company is liable as an insurer for the loss of shirt studs and link buttons left in a shirt hanging on a hook in the passenger’s unlocked stateroom while the vessel lay moored in the bay of Naples and he went ashore taking his valet with him.
McCall, J., dissented.
Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment, rendered in favor of the defendant in the Municipal Court- of the city of New York, first district, borough of Manhattan.
Cardozo & Nathan, for appellant.
Choate, Hanford & Larocque, for respondent.
See Lincoln v. New York Steamship Co., 30 Misc. Rep. 752.

Opinion:
Scott, J.
It must, I think, be conceded that defendant's responsibility to plaintiff's assignor was similar to that of an innkeeper, and consequently that it is responsible for the loss as insurer, unless plaintiff's assignor was himself guilty of negligence which was a proximate cause of the loss. Adams v. N. J. Steamboat Co., 151 N. Y. 163. I am quite 'unable to see that Mr. Harrison was guilty of any negligent act whatever, and, if the fact that he left the shirt hanging on a hook with the studs in it was negligent, it-was not the proximate cause of the loss, for after Mr. Harrison had left his room, Hepach, the cabin steward and defendant's servant entered the room and saw the shirt hanging with the studs in it. If, owing to the fact that the ship was lying in the harbor of Naples, it was especially unsafe to leave the port hole open and the door unlocked, the steward should have known that fact and should have taken pains to close the port hole and lock the door. It is suggested that while it might not be negligent to leave a port hole open and a door unlocked while at sea, it was so- to have omitted those precautions while in the port of Naples. Even if this were so there is nothing in the case to show that the loss occurred from any cause that was especially operative in the bay of Naples and would not be operative on the high seas. Of course the plaintiff's assignor might have done a great many things which would have rendered the loss of his studs more improbable, he might have put them in his trunk, or had them put in purser's safe, or have worn a shirt that fastened with ordinary buttons, instead of studs. But in my opinion he was not bound .to do anything of the sort, and I am confident that the very many persons who constantly embark on sea voyages would be greatly surprised, and reasonably so, if it were to be established as the law that a duty rested upon them to lock up their staterooms every time they had occasion to leave them. Certainly it was not negligent for the passenger to take his valet ashore with him, instead of leaving him on guard to watch his room, for that was the duty of the steamship company. In my opinion the evidence fails to show that plaintiff's assignor was guilty of any negligence which contributed to the loss, and the judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted with costs to appellant to abide the event. •