Chapter XI: Section V: The Duty of Care—misfeasance and Nonfeasance (1)

FLINT & WALLING MANUFACTURING CO. _v._ BECKETT
SUPREME COURT, INDIANA, DECEMBER 18, 1906.
_Reported in 167 Indiana Reports, 491._

Beckett brought this action against the Flint & Walling Manufacturing Company to recover damages for harm done to his barn and the contents thereof, owing to the fact that the company constructed a windmill thereon in such an insufficient manner that it fell upon the roof of the barn.

The complaint contained, in substance, the following statements:—

There was an air-shaft in the centre of the barn, extending from the bottom to, and projecting through, the roof. Defendant contracted with plaintiff to erect on the air-shaft a windmill consisting of a wheel, tower, etc., to be erected in a first-class manner. The defendant erected the windmill in a negligent manner; especially in the mode of fastening the tower to the air-shaft. In consequence of this defective construction, a wind of ordinary velocity caused the windmill to break and twist the air-shaft and fall about sixty feet on the roof of the barn.

Trial in the Circuit Court. Verdict for plaintiff and judgment thereon. Defendant company appealed.[107]

GILLETT, J.

The leading contention of appellant’s counsel is that the duty it owed to appellee arose out of contract, and that, as appellant was not engaged in a public employment, its obligation could only be enforced by an action on the contract for a breach thereof. The latter insistence cannot be upheld. It is, of course, true that it is not every breach of contract which can be counted on as a tort, and it may also be granted that if the making of a contract does not bring the parties into such a relation that a common-law obligation exists, no action can be maintained in tort for an omission properly to perform the undertaking. It by no means follows, however, that this common-law obligation may not have its inception in contract. If a defendant may be held liable for the neglect of a duty imposed on him, independently of any contract, by operation of law, _a fortiori_ ought he to be liable where he has come under an obligation to use care as the result of an undertaking founded on a consideration.

Where the duty has its roots in contract, the undertaking to observe due care may be implied from the relationship, and should it be the fact that a breach of the agreement also constitutes such a failure to exercise care as amounts to a tort, the plaintiff may elect, as the common-law authorities have it, to sue in case or in assumpsit. It is broadly stated in 1 Comyn’s Digest, Action on the Case for Negligence, A 4, p. 418, that “if a man neglect to do that, which he has undertaken to do, an action upon the case lies.... But, if there be not any neglect in the defendant, an action upon the case does not lie against him, though he do not perform his undertaking.” Professor Pollock says: “One who enters on the doing of anything attended with risk to the persons or property of others is held answerable for the use of a certain measure of caution to guard against that risk. To name one of the commonest applications, ‘those who go personally or bring property where they know that they or it may come into collision with the persons or property of others have by law a duty cast upon them to use reasonable care and skill to avoid such collision.’... In some cases this ground of liability may coexist with a liability on contract towards the same person, and arising (as regards the breach) out of the same facts. Where a man interferes gratuitously, he is bound to act in a reasonable and prudent manner according to the circumstances and opportunities of the case. And this duty is not affected by the fact, if so it be, that he is acting for reward, in other words, under a contract, and may be liable on the contract. The two duties are distinct, except so far as the same party cannot be compensated twice over for the same facts, once for the breach of contract and again for the wrong. Historically the liability in tort is older; and indeed it was by special development of this view that the action of assumpsit, afterwards the common mode of enforcing simple contracts, was brought into use. ‘If a smith prick my horse with a nail, etc., I shall have my action upon the case against him, without any warranty by the smith to do it well.... For it is the duty of every artificer to exercise his art rightly and truly as he ought.’” Webb’s Pollock, Torts, 533–536. This general thought also finds expression in Mr. Street’s valuable work (1 Street, Foundations of Legal Liability, 92). It is there said: “The general doctrine may be laid down thus: In every situation where a man undertakes to act or to pursue a particular course he is under an implied legal obligation or duty to act with reasonable care, to the end that the person or property of others may not be injured by any force which he sets in operation or by any agent for which he is responsible. If he fails to exercise the degree of caution which the law requires in a particular situation, he is held liable for any damage that results to another just as if he had bound himself by an obligatory promise to exercise the required degree of care. In this view, statements so frequently seen in negligence cases, to the effect that men are bound to act with due and reasonable care, are really vital and significant expressions. If there had been any remedial necessity for so declaring, it could obviously have been said without violence to the principle that men who undertake to act are subject to a fictitious or implied promise to act with due care.” See also Howard _v._ Shepherd, (1850) 9 C. B. (67 Eng. Com. Law) 296, 321; Coy _v._ Indianapolis Gas Co., (1897) 146 Ind. 655, 36 L. R. A. 535; Parrill _v._ Cleveland, etc., R. Co., (1900) 23 Ind. App. 638; Rich _v._ New York, etc., R. Co., (1882) 87 N. Y. 382; Dean _v._ McLean, (1875) 48 Vt. 412, 21 Am. Rep. 130; Stock _v._ City of Boston, (1889) 149 Mass. 410, 21 N. E. 871, 14 Am. St. 430; Bickford _v._ Richards, (1891) 154 Mass. 163, 27 N. E. 1014, 26 Am. St. 224; Addison, Torts (3d ed.), p. 13; 1 Thompson, Negligence (2d ed.), § 5; 1 Shearman & Redfield, Negligence (5th ed.), §§ 9, 22; Saunders, Negligence, 55, 121; 6 Cyc. Law and Proc. 688.

The position in which appellant placed this large and heavy structure, located, as it was, upon the barn, some seventy feet above the earth, was such that it was calculated to do great harm to appellee’s property should it fall. We cannot doubt, in view of the terms of the contract, construed in the light of the practical construction which the parties gave to it, to say nothing of the extraneous agreement set forth in the complaint, that it was the duty of appellant to exercise ordinary care to secure the tower in such a manner that this heavy and exposed structure would not, under the action of ordinary winds, weave around and become detached from the body of the air-shaft. Insecurely fastened, as the complaint shows that this structure was, appellant was bound to apprehend that it might fall, and that, if it did, great injury would thereby be occasioned to appellee. It was also bound to apprehend, from the very care and skill which it impliedly held itself out as exercising (a circumstance calculated to throw appellee off his guard), and from the fact that an examination was difficult, that in all probability the defects would not be observed in time to avoid the injury. Indeed, as laid down in Mowbray _v._ Merryweather, [1895] 2 Q. B. 640, and Devlin _v._ Smith, (1882) 89 N. Y. 470, 42 Am. Rep. 311, appellee owed no duty, so far as appellant was concerned, to examine the tower. The contrivance was inherently dangerous, and the circumstances of placing it upon the barn, as shown, made it calculated to eventuate in harm. This being true, and as there was no intervening responsible agency between appellee and the wrong, so that the causal relation remained unbroken, we can perceive no reason for acquitting appellant of responsibility as a tort feasor. See Wharton, Negligence (2d ed.), § 438; 1 Beven, Negligence (2d ed.), 62; Roddy _v._ Missouri Pac. R. Co., (1891) 104 Mo. 234, 15 S. W. 1112, 12 L. R. A. 746, 24 Am. St. 333. It is not necessary to consider the extent to which contracts may impose obligations to exercise care for the protection of third persons, for here the relation is direct and immediate, but we quote, as showing that there is clearly a liability in tort, in such a case as this, the following general statements in 1 Shearman & Redfield, Negligence (5th ed.), § 117, with reference to the liability for selling dangerous goods: “But one who knowingly sells an article intrinsically dangerous to human life or health, such as poison, explosive oils or diseased meat, concealing from the buyer knowledge of that fact, is responsible to any person who, without fault on the part of himself or any other person, sufficient to break the chain of causation, is injured thereby. And we see no reason why the same rule should not apply to articles known to be dangerous to property.”

* * * * *

A number of questions are argued by appellant’s counsel which are based upon the contention that the theory of the complaint was that appellant had committed a breach of contract. The latter insistence is based on the fact that the contract is set out in full in the complaint. It is often difficult to determine whether, in the statement of such a cause of action as the one under consideration, wherein the very breach of the contract also constitutes negligence, the purpose of the pleader was to rely upon a breach of contract or to charge negligence in the violation of the implied duty which was created by the undertaking of the defendant. It is true that in an action on the case for negligence, wherein the declaration or complaint is not based on mere nonfeasance it is not necessary to plead a consideration, and, therefore, where the action is based on the manner in which an undertaking was performed, or, in other words, on some misfeasance or malfeasance, the allegation of a consideration may be regarded as one of the markings of an action _ex contractu_. But we do not understand that this is a controlling consideration; on the contrary, it does not appear to admit of question that if the contract or consideration be set out as a matter of inducement only, the plaintiff’s action may be regarded as one in case for a violation of the common-law duty which the circumstances had imposed upon the defendant. 1 Chitty, Pleading, *135; Dickson _v._ Clifton, 2 Wils. 319; Watson, Damages for Per. Inj., § 570; 21 Ency. Pl. and Pr., 913. We are especially impressed with the view that in code pleading, which was designed preëminently to be a system of fact pleading, a plaintiff, in suing in tort, may properly set out his contract, as constituting the underlying fact, instead of charging the defendant’s undertaking in general terms, and that the plaintiff does not thereby necessarily commit himself to the theory that his action is for breach of contract. Leeds _v._ City of Richmond, (1885) 102 Ind. 372; Parrill _v._ Cleveland, etc., R. Co., _supra_; McMurtry _v._ Kentucky Cent. R. Co., (1886) 84 Ky. 462, 1 S. W. 815; Watson, Damages for Per. Inj., § 570. In the complaint before us appellee not only sets out the written contract, but he pleads a supplemental or subsidiary agreement as well, so that it can hardly be said that he relied on the written contract as the foundation of the action. He charges no breach of the contract except as it can be implied from the allegations of negligence; he alleges damages “by reason of the defendant’s negligence, carelessness, imprudence, and unskilfulness in erecting, constructing, and fastening said steel tower to said air-shaft as aforesaid;” he charges, in setting forth the total amount of his damages, that they were occasioned “by reason of the defendant’s negligence and failure of duty as herein alleged,” and he avers that he “had no notice or knowledge of the faulty, negligent, and unskilful erection of said mill,” and that he himself was without fault or negligence in the premises. In view of the general structure of the complaint, and applying to it the rule that a construction of a pleading which will give effect to all of its material allegations is to be preferred, where reasonably possible (Monnett _v._ Turpie, [1892] 133 Ind. 424), it appears to us that it must be held that the action was for the tort. But, admitting that there is room for doubt on this subject, the fact that the court below, as the record plainly shows, tried the cause on the theory that it was an action _ex delicto_, must settle the question against the contention of appellant. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. _v._ Acres, (1886) 108 Ind. 548; Diggs _v._ Way, (1899) 22 Ind. App. 617.

* * * * *

_Judgment affirmed._[108]

KELLY _v._ METROPOLITAN R. CO.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, APRIL 24, 1895.
_Reported in [1895] 1 Queen’s Bench, 944._

Appeal from an order of a judge at chambers affirming an order of a master directing that the plaintiff’s bill of costs should be referred back to be drawn on the county court scale.

The action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries to the plaintiff while a passenger on the defendants’ railway. The statement of claim alleged an agreement by the defendants to carry the plaintiff safely, and a breach of that agreement in negligently and improperly managing the train in which he was, so that it ran into the wall at Baker Street Station, whereby the plaintiff sustained injury. It was admitted by the defendants that the accident occurred by the negligence of the engine-driver in not turning off steam in time to prevent the train running into the dead-end at the station. A sum of 20_l._ was paid into court, and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for 25_l._

When the plaintiff’s costs were taken in to be taxed, the master was of opinion that, on the authority of Taylor _v._ Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Ry. Co., [1895] 1 Q. B. 134, the act of the engine-driver being one of omission, the action was founded on contract, and that therefore the plaintiff was only entitled to costs on the county court scale. On appeal, this decision was affirmed by Day, J.

The plaintiff appealed.

_Kemp, Q. C._, and _Cagney_, for the plaintiff, submitted that the action was in fact an action of tort, and was tried as such, and that the plaintiff was entitled to costs on the High Court scale.

_Lawson Walton, Q. C._, and _George Elliott_, for the defendants. The duty of the defendants was contractual, and they were bound to take due care not to injure the plaintiff. The act which caused the injury was an omission to turn off steam, and amounted to a nonfeasance. It was not an act of commission or misfeasance, and the defendants were not liable in tort. The distinction is dealt with in the judgment of Lindley, L. J., and A. L. Smith, L. J., in Taylor _v._ Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Ry. Co., [1895] 1 Q. B. 134, and the present case comes within that authority.

[They also cited Foulkes _v._ Metropolitan District Ry. Co., 4 C. P. D. 267; 5 C. P. D. 157.]

A. L. SMITH, L. J., read the following judgment:[109] There appears to have been some misapprehension as to what was decided in the case of Taylor _v._ Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Ry. Co., [1895] 1 Q. B. 134, to which I was a party.

The plaintiff in the present case was a passenger on the defendants’ railway, and whilst lawfully riding in one of their carriages was injured by its being negligently run into a dead-end by the defendants’ driver.

It has been thought by the master, and also by Day, J., that, because the negligence was that the driver omitted to turn off steam, this constituted a nonfeasance or omission within what was said in the above-mentioned case, and that as the plaintiff had recovered 25_l._ and no more he was only entitled to county court costs. I am clearly of opinion that this is not what was decided, nor is any such statement to be found in that judgment.

The distinction between acts of commission or misfeasance, and acts of omission or nonfeasance, does not depend on whether a driver or signalman of a defendant company has negligently turned on steam or negligently hoisted a signal, or whether he has negligently omitted to do the one or the other. The distinction is this, if the cause of complaint be for an act of omission or nonfeasance which without proof of a contract to do what has been left undone would not give rise to any cause of action (because no duty apart from contract to do what is complained of exists), then the action is founded upon contract and not upon tort. If, on the other hand, the relation of the plaintiff and the defendants be such that a duty arises from that relationship, irrespective of contract, to take due care, and the defendants are negligent, then the action is one of tort, and as regards the County Court Acts and costs this is what was laid down in the above-mentioned case. The appeal should be allowed with costs here and below.

RIGBY, L. J. I entirely agree. It appears to me that the attempt to dissect the act of the defendants’ servant, and to treat the mere omission to turn off steam as a nonfeasance within the meaning of the cases referred to, altogether fails. An engine-driver is in charge of the train, and a passenger is in that train, independently of contract, with the permission of the defendants. That passenger is injured in consequence of the train being negligently brought into collision with the dead-end. The proper description of what was done is that it was a negligent act in so managing the train as to allow it to come into contact with the dead-end and so cause the accident. It is a case in which the company by their servant neglected a duty which they owed to the plaintiff—that is to say, it was a case in which an action of tort could be brought.

_Appeal allowed._[110]

SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY _v._ GRIZZLE
SUPREME COURT, GEORGIA, JANUARY 13, 1906.
_Reported in 124 Georgia Reports, 735._

Action by Mrs. Grizzle against the Southern Railway Company and T. A. O’Neal.

The petition alleged, in substance, that the petitioner’s husband was killed by the negligence of the railway company, and of O’Neal, who was the engineer in charge of the train, while the train was being operated over a public-road crossing. It was alleged, _inter alia_, that no bell was rung nor whistle sounded, nor the speed of the train checked, and that the requirements of the blow-post law[111] were entirely disregarded by the engineer. To this petition O’Neal demurred on several grounds. The demurrer was overruled, and O’Neal excepted.[112]

COBB, P. J. 1. An agent is not ordinarily liable to third persons for mere nonfeasance. Kimbrough _v._ Boswell, 119 Ga. 210. An agent is, however, liable to third persons for misfeasance.[113] Nonfeasance is the total omission or failure of the agent to enter upon the performance of some distinct duty or undertaking which he has agreed with his principal to do. Misfeasance means the improper doing of an act which the agent might lawfully do; or, in other words, it is the performing of his duty to his principal in such a manner as to infringe upon the rights and privileges of third persons. Where an agent fails to use reasonable care or diligence in the performance of his duty, he will be personally responsible to a third person who is injured by such misfeasance. The agent’s liability in such cases is not based upon the ground of his agency, but upon the ground that he is a wrong-doer, and as such he is responsible for any injury he may cause. When once he enters upon the performance of his contract with his principal, and in doing so omits, or fails to take reasonable care in the commission of, some act which he should do in its performance, whereby some third person is injured, he is responsible therefor to the same extent as if he had committed the wrong in his own behalf. See 2 Clark & Skyles on Agency, 1297 _et seq._ Misfeasance may involve also to some extent the idea of not doing; as where an agent engaged in the performance of his undertaking does not do something which it is his duty to do under the circumstances, or does not take that precaution or does not exercise that care which a due regard to the rights of others requires. All this is not doing, but it is not the not doing of that which is imposed upon the agent merely by virtue of his relation, but of that which is imposed upon him by law as a responsible individual in common with all other members of society. It is the same not doing which constitutes actionable negligence in any relation. Mechem on Ag. § 572. As was said by Gray, C. J., in Obsorne _v._ Morgan, 130 Mass. 102 (39 Am. Rep. 439): “If the agent once actually undertakes and enters upon the execution of a particular work, it is his duty to use reasonable care in the manner of executing it, so as not to cause any injury to third persons which may be the natural consequence of his acts; and he cannot, by abandoning its execution midway and leaving things in a dangerous condition, exempt himself from liability to any person who suffers injury by reason of his having so left them without proper safeguards. This is not nonfeasance or doing nothing, but it is misfeasance, doing improperly.” In that case the agent was held liable by the fall of a tackle-block and chains from an iron rail suspended from the ceiling of a room, which fell for the reason that the agent had suffered them to remain in such a manner and so unprotected that they fell upon and injured the plaintiff. In Bell _v._ Josselyn, 3 Gray, 309 (63 Am. Dec. 742), Metcalf, J., said: “Assuming that he was a mere agent, yet the injury for which this action was brought was not caused by his nonfeasance, but by his misfeasance. Nonfeasance is the omission of an act which a person ought to do; misfeasance is the improper doing of an act which a person might lawfully do.... The defendant’s omission to examine the state of the pipes, ... before causing the water to be let on, was a nonfeasance. But if he had not caused the water to be let on, that nonfeasance would not have injured the plaintiff.”

In the present case the failure of the engineer to comply with the requirements of the blow-post law was not doing, but the running of the train over the crossing at a high rate of speed without giving the signals required by law was a positive act, and the violation of a duty which both the engineer and the railroad company owed to travelers upon the highway. The engineer having once undertaken in behalf of the principal to run the train, it was incumbent upon him to run it in the manner prescribed by law; and a failure to comply with the law, although it involved an act of omission, was not an act of mere nonfeasance, but was an act of misfeasance. This view is strengthened by the fact that the blow-post law renders the engineer indictable for failure to comply with its provisions. The allegations of the petition were therefore sufficient to charge O’Neal with a positive tort, for which the plaintiff would be entitled to bring her action against him.[114]

BLACK _v._ NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN, AND HARTFORD R. CO.
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT, MASSACHUSETTS, JANUARY 2, 1907.
_Reported in 193 Massachusetts Reports, 448._

Tort for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the servants of the defendant on February 7, 1903, while the plaintiff was a passenger of the defendant. Writ dated March 20, 1903.

At the trial in the Superior Court, Wait, J., at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence ordered a verdict for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions. The material evidence is described or quoted in the opinion.

KNOWLTON, C. J. This action was brought to recover for an injury alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant’s servants. The plaintiff was a passenger on the defendant’s train, which ran from Boston through Ashmont on the evening of February 7, 1903. He testified to having become so intoxicated that he had no recollection of anything that occurred after leaving a cigar store in Boston, until he awoke in the Boston City Hospital, about four o’clock the next day. One Thompson testified “that he took the 9.23 train on the evening of February 7, 1903, at the South Station in Boston for Ashmont, and occupied a seat near the rear of the last car of the train; that there were about twenty passengers in the car, and he noticed Black sitting in the seat opposite, very erect, with his eyes closed. When the conductor came through, Mr. Black went through his pockets as if he were looking for a ticket, and not being able to find it, tendered a fifty-cent piece in payment for his fare. The conductor began to name off the stations from Field’s Corner first and then Ashmont and when he said ‘Ashmont,’ Mr. Black nodded his head. The conductor gave him his change and his rebate check. At Ashmont, where the train stops, there is a gravelled walk, running the whole length, as a platform, then there is a flight of steps, ten or twelve, that leads up to the asphalt walk around the station, so when you go up from the steps you have to walk along this walk. The conductor and brakeman took Black out of the car, with one on each side. The distance from the steps of the car to the steps that lead up to the station was twenty-five feet. As they went along the platform, the conductor and trainman were on each side of him. They tried to stand him up, but his legs would sink away from him. They sort of helped him up and carried him to the bottom of the steps. When they went to the bottom of the steps, they continued, one on each side of him. Then one of the men got on one side with his arm around him and the other back of him sort of pushing him, and they took him up about the fifth or sixth step, and after they got him up there, they turned right around and left him and went down the steps. Mr. Black sort of balanced himself there just a minute and then fell completely backward. He turned a complete somersault and struck on the back of his head. The railroad men just had time to get down to the foot of the steps. There was a railing that led up those steps and the steps were about ten feet wide. Mr. Black was upon the right-hand side going up and he was left right near the railing. When he fell, he did not seize hold of anything, his arms were at his side.”

On this testimony the jury might find that the plaintiff was so intoxicated as to be incapable of standing, or walking, or caring for himself in any way, and that the defendant’s servants, knowing his condition, left him halfway up the steps where they knew, or ought to have known, that he was in great danger of falling and being seriously injured. They were under no obligation to remove him from the car, or to provide for his safety after he left the car. But they voluntarily undertook to help him from the car, and they were bound to use ordinary care in what they did that might affect his safety. Not only in the act of removal, but in the place where they left him, it was their duty to have reasonable regard for his safety in view of his manifest condition. The jury might have found that they were negligent in leaving him on the steps, where a fall would be likely to do him much harm. Moody _v._ Boston & Maine Railroad, 189 Mass. 277.

The defence rests principally upon the fact that the plaintiff was intoxicated, and was incapable of caring for himself after he was taken from the train, and therefore was not in the exercise of due care. If his voluntary intoxication was a direct and proximate cause of the injury, he cannot recover. The plaintiff contends that it was not a cause, but a mere condition, well known to the defendant’s servants, and that their act was the direct and proximate cause of the injury, with which no other act or omission had any causal connection. The distinction here referred to is well recognized in law....

We are of opinion that the jury in the present case might have found that the plaintiff was free from any negligence that was a direct and proximate cause of the injury.

_Exceptions sustained._[115]

UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY _v._ CAPPIER
SUPREME COURT, KANSAS, APRIL 11, 1903.
_Reported in 66 Kansas Reports, 649._

ERROR from Wyandotte District Court.

SMITH, J. This was an action brought by Adeline Cappier, the mother of Irvin Ezelle, to recover damages resulting to her by reason of the loss of her son, who was run over by a car of plaintiff in error, and died from the injuries received. The trial court, at the close of the evidence introduced to support a recovery by plaintiff below, held that no careless act of the railway company’s servants in the operation of the car was shown, and refused to permit the case to be considered by the jury on the allegations and attempted proof of such negligence. The petition, however, contained an averment that the injured person had one leg and an arm cut off by the car-wheels, and that the servants of the railway company failed to call a surgeon, or to render him any assistance after the accident, but permitted him to remain by the side of the tracks and bleed to death. Under this charge of negligence a recovery was had.

While attempting to cross the railway tracks Ezelle was struck by a moving freight-car pushed by an engine. A yardmaster in charge of the switching operations was riding on the end of the car nearest to the deceased and gave warning by shouting to him. The warning was either too late or no heed was given to it. The engine was stopped. After the injured man was clear of the track, the yardmaster signalled the engineer to move ahead, fearing, as he testified, that a passenger train then about due would come upon them. The locomotive and car went forward over a bridge, where the general yardmaster was informed of the accident and an ambulance was summoned by telephone. The yardmaster then went back where the injured man was lying and found three Union Pacific switchmen binding up the wounded limbs and doing what they could to stop the flow of blood. The ambulance arrived about thirty minutes later and Ezelle was taken to a hospital, where he died a few hours afterward.

In answer to particular questions of fact, the jury found that the accident occurred at 5.35 P. M.; that immediately one of the railway employees telephoned to police headquarters for help for the injured man; that the ambulance started at 6.05 P. M. and reached the nearest hospital with Ezelle at 6.20 P. M., where he received proper medical and surgical treatment. Judgment against the railway company was based on the following question and answer:—

“Ques. Did not defendant’s employees bind up Ezelle’s wounds and try to stop the flow of blood as soon as they could after the accident happened? Ans. No.”

The lack of diligence in the respect stated was intended, no doubt, to apply to the yardmaster, engineer, and fireman in charge of the car and engine.

These facts bring us to a consideration of the legal duty of these employees toward the injured man after his condition became known. Counsel for defendant in error quotes the language found in Beach on Contributory Negligence (3d ed.), § 215, as follows:—

“Under certain circumstances, the railroad may owe a duty to a trespasser after the injury. When a trespasser has been run down, it is the plain duty of the railway company to render whatever service is possible to mitigate the severity of the injury. The train that has occasioned the harm must be stopped, and the injured person looked after; and, when it seems necessary, removed to a place of safety, and carefully nursed, until other relief can be brought to the disabled person.”

The principal authority cited in support of this doctrine is Northern Central Railway Co. _v._ The State, use of Price et al, 29 Md. 420, 96 Am. Dec. 545. The court in that case first held that there was evidence enough to justify the jury in finding that the operatives of the train were negligent in running it too fast over a road-crossing without sounding the whistle, and that the number of brakemen was insufficient to check its speed. Such negligence was held sufficient to uphold the verdict, and would seem to be all that was necessary to be said. The court, however, proceeded to state that, from whatever cause the collision occurred, it was the duty of the servants of the company, when the man was found on the pilot of the engine in a helpless and insensible condition, to remove him, and to do it with proper regard to his safety and the laws of humanity. In that case the injured person was taken in charge by the servants of the railway company and, being apparently dead, without notice to his family, or sending for a physician to ascertain his condition, he was moved to defendant’s warehouse, laid on a plank and locked up for the night. The next morning, when the warehouse was opened, it was found that during the night the man had revived from his stunned condition and moved some paces from the spot where he had been laid, and was found in a stooping posture, dead but still warm, having died from hemorrhage of the arteries of one leg, which was crushed at and above the knee. It had been proposed to place him in the defendant’s station-house, which was a comfortable building, but the telegraph operator objected, and directed him to be taken into the warehouse, a place used for the deposit of old barrels and other rubbish.

The Maryland case does not support what is so broadly stated in Beach on Contributory Negligence. It is cited by Judge Cooley, in his work on Torts, in a note to a chapter devoted to the negligence of bailees (ch. xx.), indicating that the learned author understood the reasoning of the decision to apply where the duty began after the railway employees had taken charge of the injured person.

After the trespasser on the track of a railway company has been injured in collision with a train, and the servants of the company have assumed to take charge of him, the duty arises to exercise such care in his treatment as the circumstances will allow. We are unable, however, to approve the doctrine that when the acts of a trespasser himself result in his injury, where his own negligent conduct is alone the cause, those in charge of the instrument which inflicted the hurt, being innocent of wrong-doing, are nevertheless blamable in law if they neglect to administer to the sufferings of him whose wounds we might say were self-imposed. With the humane side of the question courts are not concerned. It is the omission or negligent discharge of legal duties only which come within the sphere of judicial cognizance. For withholding relief from the suffering, for failing to respond to the calls of worthy charity, or for faltering in the bestowment of brotherly love on the unfortunate, penalties are found not in the laws of men, but in that higher law, the violation of which is condemned by the voice of conscience, whose sentence of punishment for the recreant act is swift and sure. In the law of contracts it is now well understood that a promise founded on a moral obligation will not be enforced in the courts. Bishop states that some of the older authorities recognize a moral obligation as valid, and says:—

“Such a doctrine, carried to its legitimate results, would release the tribunals from the duty to administer the law of the land; and put, in the place of law, the varying ideas of morals which the changing incumbents of the bench might from time to time entertain.” (Bish. Cont. § 44.)

Ezelle’s injuries were inflicted, as the court below held, without the fault of the yardmaster, engineer, or fireman in charge of the car and locomotive. The railway company was no more responsible than it would have been had the deceased been run down by the cars of another railroad company on a track parallel with that of plaintiff in error. If no duty was imposed on the servants of defendant below to take charge of, and care for, the wounded man in such a case, how could a duty arise under the circumstances of the case at bar? In Barrows on Negligence, page 4, it is said:—

“The duty must be owing from the defendant to the plaintiff, otherwise there can be no negligence, so far as the plaintiff is concerned; ... and the duty must be owing to plaintiff in an individual capacity, and not merely as one of the general public.

“This excludes from actionable negligence all failures to observe the obligations imposed by charity, gratitude, generosity, and the kindred virtues. The moral law would obligate an attempt to rescue a person in a perilous position,—as a drowning child,—but the law of the land does not require it, no matter how little personal risk it might involve, provided that the person who declines to act is not responsible for the peril.” (See, also, Kenney _v._ The Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad Company, 70 Mo. 252, 257.)

In the several cases cited in the brief of counsel for defendant in error to sustain the judgment of the trial court, it will be found that the negligence on which recoveries were based occurred after the time when the person injured was in the custody and care of those who were at fault in failing to give him proper treatment.

The judgment of the court below will be reversed, with directions to enter judgment on the findings of the jury in favor of the railway company.

All the justices concurring.[116]

HUNICKE _v._ MERAMEC QUARRY COMPANY
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI, DECEMBER 19, 1914.
_Reported in 262 Missouri Reports, 560._

WOODSON, P. J.... I do not understand counsel for plaintiff to make the broad claim that, in the absence of the question of _emergency_, presented in this case, it would have been the duty of the defendant to have furnished medical or surgical treatment for the injured man, upon the occasion mentioned; but I do understand counsel to contend, and which I believe is the law, that when an employee is engaged in any dangerous business for the master, and while in the performance of his duties, as such, he is so badly injured that he is thereby rendered physically or mentally incapable of procuring medical assistance for himself, then that duty, as a matter of law, is devolved upon the master, and that he must perform that duty with reasonable diligence and in a reasonable manner, through the agency of such of his employees as may be present at the time.

In other words, without trying to state the law in detail governing the masters duties in all cases of this character, that duty is put in operation whenever, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the employee is thereby so injured that he or she is incapacitated from caring for himself or herself, as the case may be.

The uncontradicted evidence in this case shows that the deceased was so badly injured that he was physically incapacitated to care for himself or to engage medical or surgical treatment; also, that the character of his injuries was such as required immediate surgical attention, for it was apparent to all present that his leg was frightfully crushed, and that his life’s blood was freely flowing from his body. So obvious was this that several of those present, at the time of the accident, tried by their crude methods, to stop its flow. But the highest officer of the company present, the superintendent, thought none of their remedies were worthy of trial and told them their proposed treatment would do no good. He then telephoned to Dr. Kirk, at Kimswick, the condition of the injured man, Hunicke, and requested him to come to Wicks and treat the injured man; but the doctor being previously engaged in a serious case, could not leave it. The doctor, however, telephoned the superintendent to bring the injured party to Kimswick, some two miles distant, and that he would there treat him.

The evidence shows that both Wicks and Kimswick were on the railroad and that a hand-car was present which could have been used in conveying Hunicke from the former to the latter place for treatment.

For some reason not made clear, the superintendent declined to take the injured man to Kimswick for treatment, but telephoned the facts of the injury to the manager of the company at St. Louis, some twelve or fourteen miles distant, who telephoned back to the superintendent to place the injured man on the next train and send him to St. Louis. This was done; and some three or four hours later, the train arrived in the city; and upon the arrival of the train Hunicke was speedily taken to the hospital where his limb was amputated; but in the meantime practically all of the blood of his body had flowed therefrom, and he died shortly thereafter.

In the statement of the case we have set out much of the evidence tending to show the negligence of the defendant in not procuring surgical treatment for Hunicke more promptly, and that he would not have died had he received prompt treatment. That evidence tended to show that Kimswick was only two miles distant from the place of injury and that the injured man could have been taken there on a hand-car in a very _few_ minutes, probably from fifteen to twenty, at the outside. Had this been done, in all probability the flow of blood would have been stanched several hours before it was finally stopped in the city of St. Louis.

It is true that there was some evidence which tended to show that such a trip on a hand-car would have been rough and jolting, and thereby might have aggravated the flow of the blood, but conceding that to be true, it could not have caused more waste of blood than did the constant flow during the hours that passed while he was waiting for the train and being conveyed to the city of St. Louis thereon. And it seems to me that common sense would teach us that a trip on a hand-car to Kimswick would not have caused the blood to flow more freely than the trip on the train to St. Louis, six or seven times as far, would have done.

But be that as it may, when we consider those facts in connection with all the other facts and circumstances shown by the evidence, we have reached the conclusion that this, as well as the question of negligence in delaying the procurement of a surgeon, was for the jury, and that the evidence introduced was sufficient to make out a _prima facie_ case for the plaintiff.

In other words, we are of the opinion that the evidence tended to show that the company was guilty of negligence in not using more diligence in procuring medical and surgical treatment for this party; also that it tended to show that said negligence was the proximate cause of his death.

* * * * *

In my opinion there is no possibility of doubt but what the law is that, whenever one person employs another to perform dangerous work, and while performing that work he is so badly injured as to incapacitate him from caring for himself, then the duty of providing medical treatment for him is devolved upon the employer; and that duty in my opinion, grows out of the fact that when we get down to the real facts in all such cases, there is an unexpressed humane and natural understanding existing between them to the effect that whenever any one in such a case is so injured that he cannot care for himself, then the employer will furnish him medical or surgical treatment as the case may be.

This is common knowledge. There is not an industrial institution in this country, great or small, where that practice is not being carried on to-day; and that has been the custom and usage among men from the dawn of civilization down to the present day, and will continue to be practised in the future, just so long as the human heart beats in sympathy for the unfortunate, and desires to aid suffering humanity. The same principle underlies all other avocations of life. Even armies while engaged in actual warfare observe and obey this rule when possible. The soldier who refuses to render surgical or medical aid to the victim of his own sword, is eschewed by all decent men; while upon the other hand, all who administer to the wants and necessities of the sick and wounded are considered as God’s noblemen and as princes among men. So universally true and deep-seated is this humane feeling among men, and so universally recognized and practised among them, that it has become a world-wide rule of moral conduct among men, brothers, friends and foes; and it says to one and all, You must exercise all reasonable efforts and means at hand to alleviate the pain and suffering and save the lives and limbs of those who have been stricken in your presence. For the violation of this rule of moral conduct there is no penalty attached save the condemnation of God and the scorn of all good men and women.

But seeing the wisdom, goodness and justice of this moral law, the law of the land laid its strong hand upon it, the same as it did upon many other good and useful customs of England, and breathed into it a living rule of legal conduct among men. It says unto all who employ labor that, because of this universally practised custom of men to furnish medical and surgical aid for those who are stricken in their presence, you must furnish the employee with such services when he is so badly injured that he is incapacitated from caring for himself.

This is but the application or extension of the common-law rule which requires the master to furnish his servant with a safe place in which to work, and safe instrumentalities with which to perform that labor.

That law grew out of the old customs and usages of the English people, of furnishing their servants with a safe place in which to work and safe instrumentalities with which to labor. So universally true was that custom that the law read into all contracts of labor an implied promise on the part of the master to furnish those safeguards to his servants. There is no statutory or written law upon the subject. It is simply what is called the unwritten or common law of England, which has been adopted by statutes in this and many other States of the Union.

So in like manner into the universal custom of employers furnishing his employees with medical aid when so badly injured that they could not care for themselves, the common law, as in the cases of the safety appliances before mentioned, breathed an implied agreement or duty on the part of the former to furnish the latter medical or surgical aid whenever he was so badly injured that he could not care for himself.

This law, like the one previously mentioned, has no statutory origin, but has ripened into a law from wise and humane usages and customs that are so old that the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, and will continue so long as the conduct of man is prompted and governed by love and humane sentiments.

As previously stated, I am firmly of the opinion that the petition stated a good cause of action against the defendant, and that the evidence was sufficient to make a case for the jury; and so believing, I think the action of the trial court in granting a new trial to the plaintiff for the first and second reasons assigned by counsel for defendant, was not erroneous, but proper.[117]

DEPUE _v._ FLATAU
SUPREME COURT, MINNESOTA, MARCH 15, 1907.
_Reported in 100 Minnesota Reports, 299._

Action in the District Court for Watonwan County to recover $5000 for personal injuries. The case was tried before Lorin Cray, J., who, at the conclusion of plaintiff’s testimony, dismissed the action. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Reversed.