Evidence.

158. Falling Objects as Authorizing Presumption of Negligence.The doctrine res ipsa loquitur has found a frequent application in cases of injuries from falling objects and substances. that an object whose fall has caused an injury to a traveler upon a public thoroughfare was under the management of the defendant or his servants has frequently been held to be sufficient to establish a want of due care on the part of such defendant, if the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen, and no adequate explanation of its occurrence is offered.12 The rule has been applied in many instances to injuries produced by the fall of awnings,18 signs,14 walls, buildings, parts of buildings, 15 building materials,16 tools,17 electric wires, 18 and many other objects. It is generally agreed that from the fact alone, unexplained, that an elevator fell in the shaft it may be justly and properly inferred that there was negligence on the part of the owner in the management of the elevator, or that its construction was faulty and dangerous.19

Cotton-Press, etc., Co., 89 Tenn. 1, 14 S. W. 317, 24 A. S. R. 586.

11. Dixon v. Pluns, 98 Cal. 384, 33 Pac. 268, 35 A. S. R. 180, 20 L.R.A. 698; Carl v. Young, 103 Me. 100, 68 Atl. 593, 125 A. S. R. 290, 14 L.R.A.(N.S.) 425; Uggla v. West End St. R. Co., 160 Mass. 351, 35 N. E. 1126, 39 A. S. R. 481; Barnowsky v. Helson, 89 Mich. 202, 50 N. W. 989, 15 L.R.A. 33 and note; Ryder v. Kinsey, 62 Minn. 85, 64 N. W. 94, 54 A. S. R. 623, 34 L.R.A. 557; Earl v. Reid, 21 Ont. L. Rep. 545, 18 Ann. Cas. 1. Compare Kendall v. Boston, 118 Mass. 234, 19 Am. Rep. 446.

Notes: 113 A. S. R. 1010; 12 L.R.A. 189; L.R.A.1915F 577; 1 Eng. Rul. Cas. 206.

See supra, par. 65-69.

12. Dixon v. Pluns, 98 Cal. 384, 33 Pac. 268, 35 A. S. R. 180, 20 L.R.A. 698; Waller v. Ross, 100 Minn. 7, 110 N. W. 252, 117 A. S. R. 661, 10 Ann. Cas. 715, 12 L.R.A. (N.S.) 721; Wolf v. American Tract Soc., 164 N. Y. 30, 58 N. E. 31, 51 L.R.A. 241.

13. Waller v. Ross, 100 Minn. 7, 110 N. W. 252, 117 A. S. R. 661, 10 Ann. Cas. 715, 12 L.R.A.(N.S.) 721.

14. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hopkins, 54 Ark. 209, 15 S. W. 610, 12 L.R.A. 189 and note.

15. Hall v. Gage, 116 Ark. 50, 172

S. W. 833, L.R.A.1915C 704 and note; Cork v. Blossom, 162 Mass. 330, 38 N. E. 495, 44 A. S. R. 362, 26 L.R.A. 256; Ryder v. Kinsey, 62 Minn. 85, 64 N. W. 94, 54 A. S. R. 623, 34 L.R.A. 557; Soriero v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 86 N. J. L. 642, 92 Atl. 604, Ann. Cas. 1916E 1071, L.R.A.1915C 710; Kearney v. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. 759, 40 L. J. Q. B. 285, 24 L. T. N. S. 913, 20 W. R. 24, 19 Eng. Rul. Cas. 1; Earl v. Reid, 21 Ont. L. Rep. 545, 18 Ann. Cas. 1.

Note: 19 Eng. Rul. Cas. 13.

See supra, par. 68; BUILDINGS, vol. 4, p. 410.

But there is authority to the contrary. Denver v. Spencer, 34 Colo. 270, 82 Pac. 590, 114 A. S. R. 158, 7 Ann. Cas. 1042, 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) 147; Serio v. Murphy, 99 Md. 545, 58 Atl. 435, 105 A. S. R. 316; Kennedy v. Hawkins, 54 Ore. 164, 102 Pac. 733, 25 L.R.A. (N.S.) 606.

16. Wolf v. American Tract Soc., 16 N. Y. 30, 58 N. E. 31, 51 L.R.A. 241.

17. Dixon v. Pluns, 98 Cal. 384, 33 Pac. 268, 35 A. S. R. 180, 20 L.R.A. 698.

18. Haynes v. Raleigh Gas Co., 114 N. C. 203, 19 S. E. 344, 41 A. S. R. 786, 26 L.R.A. 810.

Note: 113 A. S. R. 1012.

19. Hartford Deposit Co. v. Sollitt,

And it has been held that if a person driving in a public street is struck by a broken iron, part of an ear used to clasp a trolley wire and apply to it a strain from the guy, in order to keep the trolley wire in place around a curve and over a track, these facts, in the absence of other evidence, justify and require the jury to find negligence on the part of the defendant.20 Similarly, proof of the falling of a trolley pole from an electric car, when it stopped at a usual stopping place, upon a person standing there for the purpose of getting upon the car, raises the presumption of negligence on the part of the traction company; and, unless rebutted, the party injured is entitled to recover. Again, if a customer enters a store to make a purchase, and while there a basket used upon the storekeeper's carrier system to convey goods to and from the counter falls from the track and strikes the customer, a prima facie case is there made out against the storekeeper, entitling the customer to have it submitted to the jury to say whether negligence has been established by the facts proved, unless the defendant shows that the carrier system was properly installed and in good repair, or that it had been properly inspected without any defect being discovered, or that the basket was caused to fall by some person or influence for whom or which the defendant was not responsible.

159. Explosions as Basis of Presumption of Negligence.-Cases of injuries from explosions is another class in which the doctrine res ipsa loquitur frequently has been invoked. Thus, it is held that an explosion in a dynamite factory raises a presumption of negligence, and, unexplained, makes a prima facie case for recovery for injury to person or property. And the case, it is held, is strengthened and completed by expert evidence to the effect that, if the correct process of manufacturing and handling dynamite was carefully carried out, an explosion would not occur. Some courts have adopted the view that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur extends to boiler explosions; in other words, that boilers do not explode ordinarily

172 Ill. 222, 50 N. E. 178, 64 A. S. R. 35; Springer v. Ford, 189 Ill. 430, 59 N. E. 953, 82 A. S. R. 464, 52 L.R.A. 930; Griffen v. Manice, 166 N. Y. 188, 59 N. E. 925, 82 A. S. R. 630, 52 L.R.A. 922; Spees v. Boggs, 198 Pa. St. 112, 47 Atl. 875, 82 A. S. R. 792, 52 L.R.A. 933; Edwards v. Manufacturers Bldg. Co., 27 R. I. 248, 61 Atl. 646, 114 A. S. R. 37, 8 Ann. Cas. 974 and note, 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) 744.

Note: 113 A. S. R. 1030.

See ELEVATORS, vol. 9, p. 1259. 20. Uggla v. West End. St. R. Co., 160 Mass. 351, 35 N. E. 1126, 39 A. S. R. 481.

1. Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Holzenkamp, 74 Ohio St. 379, 78 N. E. 529, 113 A. S. R. 980, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 800 and note.

2. Anderson v. McCarthy Dry Goods Co., 49 Wash. 398, 95 Pac. 325, 126 A. S. R. 870, 16 L.R.A. (N.S.) 931 and note.

3. Judson v. Giant Powder Co., 107 Cal. 549, 40 Pac. 1020, 48 A. S. R. 146, 29 L.R.A. 718.

Note: 15 L.R.A. 35, 38.

4. Judson v. Giant Powder Co., 107 Cal. 549, 40 Pac. 1020, 48 A. S. R. 146, 29 L.R.A. 718.

when proper care has been exercised, and hence that in case of an explosion it is a legitimate inference or presumption that proper care has not been exercised. Of the later cases, however, a majority have taken the view that the explosion of a boiler gives rise to no presumption of negligence. It has been held that if a traveler upon the public streets of a city is injured by an unseen instrument exploding within the area of a street over which a city has control, a prima facie cause of action is established, and it devolves upon the city to show that it exercised reasonable care in order to overcome the presumption of negligence arising from the explosion. But the mere explosion of a bottle of carbonated beverage to the injury of a purchaser has been held not sufficient to carry to the jury the question of the negligence of the one who bottled it, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.8 Where a blast is discharged at a place. where it is not unlawful to discharge it, the fact that a man was killed by a rock thrown by the blast, at a distance of from 940 feet. to 1,200 feet, in a horizontal direction, presents only a prima facie case of negligence, which may be rebutted by showing due care on the part of those who discharged the blast, and the question of their negligence should not be taken from the jury.9

160. Other Circumstances Authorizing Application of Doctrine.The mere fact that horses ran away and an injury resulted will not justify an inference of negligence, without some evidence of the circumstances under which it occurred. 10 Nor will negligence be presumed against the owner or driver of a horse from the fact that the horse, attached to a cart, ran away while in charge of the driver, and, notwithstanding his efforts to control him, ran over and injured a person in the street. But the unexplained presence upon a public highway of a runaway horse harnessed to a wagon, unattended by the owner or other person, raises a prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the owner. 19 It has been held that negli

5. Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 127 La. 309, 53 So. 575, Ann. Cas. 1912A 976 and note.

Note: 113 A. S. R. 1015. See EXPLOSIVES AND EXPLOSIONS, vol. 11, p. 669.

6. Branham v. Buckley, 158 Ky. 848, 166 S. W. 618, Ann. Cas. 1915D 861; Huff v. Austin, 46 Ohio St. 386, 21 N. E. 864, 15 Á. S. R. 613; Vieth v. Hope Salt, etc., Co., 51 W. Va. 96, 41 S. E. 187, 57 L.R.A. 410.

Notes: 113 A. S. R. 1014; Ann. Cas. 1912A 980.

7. Beall v. Seattle, 28 Wash. 593, 69 Pac. 12, 92 A. S. R. 892, 61 L.R.A.

583.

R. C. L. Vol. XX.-13.

8. Dail v. Taylor, 151 N. C. 284, 66 S. E. 135, 28 L.R.A.(N.S.) 949.

9. Klepsch v. Donald, 4 Wash. 436, 30 Pac. 991, 31 A. S. R. 936.

10. Button v. Frink, 51 Conn. 342, 50 Am. Rep. 24; O'Brien v. Miller, 60 Conn. 214, 22 Atl. 544, 25 A. S. R. 320; Creamer v. McIlvain, 89 Md. 343, 43 Atl. 935, 73 A. S. R. 186, 45 L.R.A. 531; Dennery v. Great Atlantic, etc., Tea Co., 82 N. J. L. 517, 81 Atl. 861, 39 L.R.A. (N.S.) 574 and note.

11. O'Brien v. Miller, 60 Conn. 214, 22 Atl. 544, 25 A. S. R. 320.

12. Dennery v. Great Atlantic, etc., Tea Co., 82 N. J. L. 517, 81 Atl. 861, 39 L.R.A. (N.S.) 574 and note; Gor193

gence will not be presumed against the owner of a racecourse who is giving thereon a public exhibition of racing, from the allegation that a horse ran away and inflicted an injury upon a spectator, where it does not appear that the horse was the property of, or under the control of, the defendant, nor at what place the plaintiff was when he received his injury.18 Negligence on the part of a seller or manufacturer is not made out from the mere fact that personal injury resulted from the use of the article sold or manufactured.14 It has been held that the mere sale of a poisonous drug as harmless does not establish a prima facie case of negligence against the druggist thus selling it, and his actual negligence in making such sale must be proved to justify a recovery.15 A presumption of negligence attends the blowing or burning out of the controller on an electric car, to the injury of a passenger on the car.16

Burden of Proof

161. Negligence.-One who seeks to recover of another on the ground of negligence on the part of that other assumes the burden. of maintaining not only the negligence complained of, but that such negligence has occasioned him loss.17 Where the facts are such as

such v. Swan, 109 Tenn. 36, 69 S. W. 1113, 97 A. S. R. 836.

13. Hart v. Washington Park Club, 157 Ill. 9, 41 N. E. 620, 48 A. S. R. 298, 29 L.R.A. 492.

14. Dail v. Taylor, 151 N. C. 66 S. E. 135, 28 L.R.A. (N.S.) and note.

284,
949

15. Howes v. Rose, 13 Ind. App. 674, 42 N. E. 303, 55 A. S. R. 251. See DRUGS AND DRUGGISTS, vol. 9, pp. 702-704.

Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v. Sherwood, 132 Ind. 129, 31 N. E. 781, 32 A. S. R. 239, 17 L.R.A. 339; Clements v. Louisiana Electric Light Co., 44 La. Ann. 692, 11 So. 51, 32 A. S. R. 348, 16 L.R.A. 43; Murray v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 101 Mo. 236, 13 S. W. 817, 20 A. S. R. 601; Scheurer v. Banner Rubber Co., 227 Mo. 347, 126 S. W. 1037, 21 Ann. Cas. 1110, 28 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1207; Omaha v. Bowman, 52 Neb. 293, 72 N. W. 316, 66 A. S. R. 16. Cassady v. Old Colony St. R. 506, 40 L.R.A. 531; Wieland v. DelaCo., 184 Mass. 156, 68 N. E. 10, 63 ware, etc., Canal Co., 167 N. Y. 19, 60 L.R.A. 285; Firebaugh v. Seattle Elec- N. E. 234, 82 A. S. R. 707; Hilsinger tric Co., 40 Wash. 658, 82 Pac. 995, v. Trickett, 86 Ohio St. 286, 99 N. E. 11 A. S. R. 990, 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) 305, Ann. Cas. 1913D 421; McCully 836 and note. See also San Juan v. Clarke, 40 Pa. St. 399, 80 Am. Dec. Light, etc., Co. v. Requena, 224 U. S. 584; Downey v. Gemini Min. Co., 24 89, 32 S. Ct. 399, 56 U. S. (L. ed.) 680. Utah 431, 68 Pac. 414, 91 A. S. R. 17. Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Reeves, 798; Rogers v. Rio Grande Western 10 Wall. 176, 19 U. S. (L. ed.) 909; Ry. Co., 32 Utah 367, 90 Pac. 1075, The Joseph B. Thomas, 86 Fed. 658, 125 A. S. R. 876; Gibson v. Hunting56 U. S. App. 619, 30 C. C. A. 333, ton, 38 W. Va. 177, 18 S. E. 447, 45 46 L.R.A. 58; Birmingham Union R. A. S. R. 853, 22 L.R.A. 561; Bare v. Co. v. Hale, 90 Ala. 8, 8 So. 142, 24 Crane Creek Coal, etc., Co., 61 W. Va. A. S. R. 748; Jacksonville, etc., R: Co. 28. 55 S. E. 907, 123 A. S. R. 966, 8 v. Peninsular Land, etc., Co., 27 Fla. L.R.A. (N.S.) 284; Daniel v. Metropoli1, 157, 9 So. 661, 689, 17 L.R.A. 33: tan R. Co., L. R. 5 II. L. 45, 40 L. J.

to raise a presumption of negligence, or give rise to the principle res ipsa loquitur,18 the burden of proceeding is shifted to the defendant, and if he would escape an adverse finding he must adduce evidence to meet the plaintiff's case.19 But the doctrine res ipsa loquitur does not cast on the defendant the burden of disproving negligence in the sense of making it incumbent upon him to establish freedom from negligence by a preponderance of the evidence.20 Although the case is one authorizing the application of the doctrine, the plaintiff, nevertheless, must assume the burden of establishing negligence by a preponderance of the evidence.1

162. Contributory Negligence.-For a considerable time one of the most violent controversies to be found in the books has centered upon the question whether the plaintiff must prove that he himself was free from negligence or whether the defendant has the burden of showing that the injury was due to the fault of the plaintiff. Many courts stoutly maintain that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that he or his intestate as the case may be was not guilty of contributory negligence; whereas others just as tenaciously defend the position that the defendant must prove the existence

C. Pl. 121, 24 L. T. N. S. 815, 20 W.
R. 37, 18 Eng. Rul. Cas. 659.

Notes: 6 A. S. R. 792; 113 A. S. R. 988; 116 A. S. R. 116; 2 L.R.A. 820. 18. See supra, par. 156.

19. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. South Fork Coal Co., 139 Fed. 528, 71 C. C. A. 316, 1 L.R.A.(N.S.) 533; Elwood v. Connecticut R., etc., Co., 77 Conn. 145, 58 Atl. 751, 1 Ann. Cas. 779.

Note: 16 L.R.A. (N.S.) 527.

3. Bartram v. Sharon, 71 Conn. 686, 43 Atl. 143, 71 A. S. R. 225, 46 L.R.A. 144; Galena, etc., R. Co. v. Yarwood, 17 Ill. 509, 65 Am. Dec. 682; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Dewey, 26 Ill. 255, 79 Am. Dec. 374; Blanchard V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 126 Ill. 416, 18 N. E. 799, 9 A. S. R. 630; Brannen v. Kokomo, etc., Gravel Road Co., 115 Ind. 115, 17 N. E. 202, 7 A. S. R. 411; Day v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 96 20. Sweeney v. Erving, 228 U. S. Me. 207, 52 Atl. 771, 90 A. S. R. 335; 233, 33 S. Ct. 416, 57 U. S. (L. ed.) Wilson v. Charlestown, 8 Allen (Mass.) 815, Ann. Cas. 1914D 905 and note; 137, 85 Am. Dec. 693; Warren v. Button v. Frink, 51 Conn. 342, 50 Am. Fitchburg R. Co., 8 Allen (Mass.) 227, Rep. 24; Lee v. Jones, 181 Mo. 291, 85 Am. Dec. 700; Gilman v. Eastern 79 S. W. 927, 103 A. S. R. 596; Burke R. Corp., 10 Allen (Mass.) 233, 87 V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 7 Heisk. Am. Dec. 635; Butterfield v. Western (Tenn.) 451, 19 Am. Rep. 618; Mexi- R. Corp., 10 Allen (Mass.) 532, 87 can Cent. R. Co. v. Lauricella, 87 Tex. 277, 28 S. W. 277, 47 A. S. R. 103. Note: 16 L.R.A. (N.S.) 531. 1. Duhme V. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 184 N. Y. 404, 77 N. E. 386, 112 A. S. R. 615.

2. Notes: 58 Am. Rep. 229; 116 A. S. R. 115 et seq.; 33 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1086; 10 Ann. Cas. 4.

Statutes declaring the rule have been enacted in some states. 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1214 et seq. note.

Am. Dec. 678; Lucas v. New Bedford, etc., R. Co., 6 Gray (Mass.) 64, 66 Am. Dec. 406; Gaynor v. Old Colony, etc., R. Co., 100 Mass. 208, 97 Am. Dec. 96; Murphy v. Deane, 101 Mass. 455, 3 Am. Rep. 390; Mynning v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 64 Mich. 93, 31 N. W. 147, 8 A. S. R. 804; Gonzales v. New York, etc., R. Co., 38 N. Y. 449, 98 Am. Dec. 58; Wieland v. Delaware, ete., Canal Co., 167 N. Y. 19, 60 N. E. 234, 82 A. S. R. 707; Bamberger v.