Year: 1859

ges resulting to individuals from explosions


was illustrated last week, in the T. S. circuit


court in which jury awarded $4,000 DANA
ges to James Sherron, cock of the steamer


John Simonds, who had leg broken in conse-
quence of the explosion of the cylinder-head


of one of the engines of thesteamer Falls City,


then along side the Simonds 1t being shown
/ that Sherron's leg was broken, not by any pro-


jectile from the Falls City, but by his own act,


in jumping from the cook shop to the lower


deck, after seeing the explosion, many people


wonder how jury could award him such heavy
| damages against the owners of the Falls City.
| The award was only the result of rigid ap-
plication of the laws of congress in reference
! to the responsibilities of steamboat owners. 1t


was proven that Sherron broke his leg in his


momentary impulse to get out OF the danger


which he saw, and the defendants failed 10


prove that proper precaution had been used in


selecting the metal of which the exploded


cyiinderhead was made; hence the award OF


damages. AS matter of interest to steam


boatmen and the travelling public, we will give


the substance Of judge Campbells charge to


the jury in the Sherron case:


The Jury must be satisfied that the plaintiff
suffered the injury complained of, as a conse-
quenee of the explosion of the boiler Of the
Falls City, and without having contributed to
it by any fault on his part. II the jury should
find that the plaintiff was in q secure position


and rashly or inconsd6rately abandoned it and


took position Of peril, Land in consequence re-


ceived the injury, he could not recover. But


ifthe circumstances of the explosion were such


as to create reasonable impression Of imminent


danger and the abandonment of his position was


a reasonable precaulion to avoid it, and in the
l.,


of the explosion, his claim to compensation


would not be excluded, although it should


afterWard appear that he would have received
comparatively little injury had he not changed


his position, or that he had not adopted the
most judicous means of escape


The owners of, the Falls City were bound to


use active diligence in fitting and equipping


their vessel, so that it should be suitable for
navigation without exposing the lives of pas
sengers and others to hazard. In the selection
Of the materials for the machinery of the boat,


and in its manufacture, they were bound to
| provide competent and faithful men, who should
| be actually engaged in attending to it, Upon
; the proof being made that the plaintiff had
+ suffered from the injurious escape of steam.


the act of congress has imposed upon the de-
| PENDANTS the burden of proving there had been
, no negligence; and if it should appear that the
material of which the machinery was composed


was an inferior metal or that the thickness of
: the drum-head was insufficient to bear the
: pressure to which it was habitually exposed.


or that the metal was subject to innate and
s latent defects which rendered its use insecure
e and doubtful, and there was another metal in
! common use for that purpose not exposed to the
: objections, and was altogether superior, it will


be question for the jury whether there had
] been proper diligence employed in the selection


of the materials for the construction of the
e engine, although it should appear that the ex-
e plosion occurred from defect in the metal that


could not be aseertained by yigilant inspec-


ton.


e The'jury will determine, upon the whole
e evidence whether there had been proper care,
g skill and intelligence employed in the prepara-
d ton of the machinery, so as to guard against
v the disaster complained of. The jury will in
d quire whether the engine had been managed


with skill, intelligence and caution by the
1t engineers in the service OF the defendants. 1t
e was the duty of engineers to see, before the
s. commencement of the voyage, and at all times
e during its continuance, that the engine was IN
0 complete order, and if there was any leak or
+ fracture which rendered it insecure.


If the jury should find that the explosion


arose from any fracture or other visible defect
. in the machinery, the defendants could only
!. relieve themselves by proof that they had used
all the means in their power to detect it prior
: to the commencement of the voyage. The de-
PENDANTS are not liable TO vindictive or punitive
> damages, and the pecunary condition of the
y defendants cannot be considered in the estimate;
. they are only liable for the natural and pr9xi-
: mate loss the plaintiff susqnsd in consequence
: of his injury. N.O.Crescent