Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

4 See Vanderbilt v. Richmond Turnp. Co. 2 N. Y. 479; Owsley v. Montgomery Railway Co. 37 Ala. 560; Edwards v. London etc. Railw. Co. Law R. 6 Q. B. 65; Weed v. Panama R. R. Co. 17 N. Y. 362; Parker v. Erie Railw. Co. 5 Hun, 57; Ford v. Fitchburg R. R. Co. 110 Mass. 240; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Downey, 18 Ill. 259; and see Sheridan v. Charlick, Daly, 338

§ 82. Trespass to property.-In general, wherever an action for an injury to the real or personal property of another will lie against an individual, a corporation will, in like circumstances, be liable for injuries committed by its agents or servants, acting within the scope of their authority. A corporation is thus liable for injuries to neighboring lands caused by blasting rocks on its own lands for the construction of its works; 2 or for creating a nuisance resulting in damage to the property of another; 3 or for the conversion of goods, and trover will lie therefor; or for the infringement of a patent,5 for which an action on the case will lie; and for malfeasance generally, an action on the case will lie against a corporation.7 A corporation was held liable to a traveler for injuries caused by an obstruction placed by it in a way which it had built and kept in repair, but which had been used by the public so as to have become a public way, although the corporation had no authority under its charter to construct the way.8 If a railway company constructs its line across a highway, and a carriage is damaged in consequence of the rails being too high above the surface of the roadway, the company is liable.9

1 First Baptist Church v. Schenectady etc. R. R. Co. 5 Barb. 80; How v. Canal Co. 5 Har. (Del.)245; Lousville etc. R. R. Co. v. Faulkner, 2 Head, 65; Lee v. Sandy Hill, 40 N. Y. 442; Carinan v. Steubenville etc. R. R. Co. 4 Ohio St. 399.

2 Hay v. Cohoes Co. 2 N. Y. 159; Tremain v. Cohoes Co. 2 id. 163; Sabin v. Vt. Cent. R. R. Co. 25 Vt. 363.

3 Terre Haute Gas Co. v. Teel, 20 Ind. 131; Delaware Canal Co. v. Commouw. 60. Pa. St. 367; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Grabill, 50 Ill. 241; Ellis v. Kansas City etc. R. R. Co. 63 Mo. 431; and see Fenwick v. East Lon don Railw. Co. Law R. 20 Eq. 544.

4 Beach v. Fulton Bank.7 Cowen, 485; Mears v. London etc. Railw. Co. 11 Com. B. N. S. 850; Dunn v. Hartford etc. R. R. Co. 43 Conn. 434. 5 Poppenhusen v. New York etc. Comb Co. 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 62.

6 Kneass v. Schuylkill Bank, 4 Wash. C. C. 9. see Goodyear v. Phelps, 3 Blatchf. 91.

7 Mayor etc. v. Bailey, 3 Hill 531; 2 Denio, 433.

8 Taylor v. Boston Water Power Co. 12 Gray, 415.

9 Oliver v. Northeastern Railw. Co. Law R. 9 Q. B. 409; and see Fash v. Third Av. R. R. Co. 1 Daly, 148.

§ 83. Libel, malicious prosecution, etc.-A corporation may maintain an action for a libel upon it; 1 and a business corporation aggregate, at least, has the capacity to compose and publish a libel,2 and may become liable to an action for damages by the person concerning whom the words are composed and published. So, an action

for malicious prosecution may be maintained against a corporation aggregate. In such actions malice may be inferred from the want of probable cause, and involves nothing more than a wrongful act intentionally done.5 An action for a vexatious suit, or for suing out a malicious attachment, or for false imprisonment,8 may likewise be sustained against a corporation aggregate.9

6

1 Shoe and Leather Bank v. Thompson, 23 How. Pr. 252; 18 Abb. Pr. 413; Brennan v. Tracy; 2 Mo. App. 540; Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. v. Ecclesine, 2 Jones & S. 76; 42 How. Pr. 201; Metrop. Saloon etc. Co. v. Hawkins, 4 Hurl. & N. 87.

2 Maynard v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co. 34 Cal. 48.

3 Aldrich v. Press Printing Co. 9 Minn. 133; Hewitt v. Pioneer Press Co. 23 id. 178; Johnson v. St. Louis Despatch Co. 2 Mo. App. 565; Howe Machine Co. v. London, 53 Ga. 64; IIawkins v. New Orleans Printing Co. 2) La. An. 134; Samuels v. Evening Mail Assoc. 9 Hun, 288; Whitfield v. Southeastern Railw. Co. 1 El. B. & E. 115; Maynard v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. 34 Cal. 48.

4 Copley v. Grover etc. Machine Co. 2 Woods, 494; Williams v. Ins. Co. 57 Miss. 759; 34 Am. R. 4 4; Wheless r. Nat. Bank. 1 Baxt. 469; 25 Am. R 753; Vance v. Erie Railw. Co. 32 N. J. L. 334; Fenton e. Wilson Machine Co. 9 Phila. 189; Henderson v. Midland Railw. Co. 20 Week. R. 23; but compare Stevens v. Midland Railw. Co. 10 Ex. 352; Owsley v. Montgomery etc. R. R. Co. 37 Ala. 560.

5 Vance v. Erle Railw. Co. 32 N. J. L. 334; and see Vinas v. Mer. chants etc. Ins. Co. 27 La. An. 368.

6 Goodspeed v. East Haddam Bank, 22 Conn. 530.

7 Wheless v. National Bank, 57 Tenn. 469; 25 Am. R. 783.

8 Owsley v. Montgomery etc. R. R. Co. 37 Ala. 560.

9 See Gillett v. Missouri Valley R. R. Co. 55 Mo. 315; Cumberland etc. Canal Co. v. Portland, 56 Me. 78; Carter v. Howe Mách. Co. 7 Re porter, 621; 51 Md. 2:0; 34 Am. R. 311; Jeffersonville etc. R. R. Co. v. Rogers, 28 Ind. 7.

§ 84. Negligence.-For injuries occasioned by the negligence of a servant while engaged in the business of

the master, within the scope of his employment, the latter is liable for compensatory damages,1 and a corporation may incur this liability as well as a private person;2 and exemplary damages may be allowed, where the negligence of the defendant is so gross and culpable as to evince utter recklessness.8 Such gross negligence may be established by showing that the act of the servant was authorized or ratified, or that the master employed or retained the servant, knowing that he was incompetent or from bad habits unfit for the position he occupied.1 An injury occasioned to a third person from the negligent manner in which the work of a corporation has been constructed or protected, renders the corporation liable for the negligence of its servants in the course of their employment, although it did not authorize or know of the particular acts complained of. So, a corporation may be held liable for negligently keeping a mischievous animal;7 but it must be shown that the mischievous propensity of the animal was known to some person who had control of the yard where it was kept, or of the animal itself. And a railway company is not liable for an injury to a person from the bite of a stray dog while waiting for a train at the company's station, where it is shown that the servants of the company had previously attempted to drive the dog from the premises. It is not a defense to an action against a corporation for an injury occasioned by the negligence of its servants, that the act from which the injury resulted was unauthorized by the charter, if, in any clear and explicit manner, the corporation recognized the act as done in its business.10

1 Cosgrove v. Ogden, 49 N. Y. 255; Robinson v. Webb, 11 Bush, 464; Smith v. Read. 6 Daly, 33.

2 Peck v. New York Cent. R. R. Co. 70 N. Y. 587; Mott v. Consumers' Ice Co. 73 id. 543; Say der v. Hamilton etc. R. R. Co. 60 Mo. 413; Jackson v. Metrop. Railw. Co. L. R. 2 C. P. D. 125; Peebles v. Patapsco Guano Co. 77 No. Car. 233; Lewis v. St. Louis etc. R. R. Co. 59 Mo. 495.

3 Caldwell v. New Jersey Steamboat Co. 47 N. Y. 282; Cleghorn v. New York Cent. etc. R. R. Co. 56 id. 44; Beale v. Railway Co. 1 Dill. 568; Hawes v. Knowles, 114 Mass. 518; Mendelsohn v. Anaheim Lighter Co. 40 Cal. 657; Bass v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 42 Wis. 654.

4 Cleghorn v. New York Cent. etc. R. R. Co. 56 N. Y. 44; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Hammer, 72 Ill. 347; Atlantic etc. R. R. Co. v. Dunn, 19 Ohio St. 162.

5 Church of Ascension v. Buckhart, 3 Hill, 193; Ludlow v. Village of Yonkers, 43 Barb. 493; Stout v. Sioux City etc. R. R. Co. 2 Dill. 294. 6 Railroad Company v. Hanning, 15 Wall. 649; and see Indianapolis etc. Railw. Co. v. Anthony, 43 Ind. 183.

7 Baldwin v. Casella, Law R. 7 Exch. 325; S. C. 3 Eng. R. 434; and see Wilkinson v. Parrott, 32 Cal. 102; Applebee v. Percy, Law R. 9 Coin. P. 647.

8 Stiles v. Cardiff Steamship Nav. Co. 4 New R. 483; 33 Law J. Q. B. 310.

9 Smith v. Great Eastern Railw. Co. Law R. 2 Com. P. 4. 10 Hutchinson v. Western etc. R. R. Co. 6 Heisk. 634.

§ 85. Wrongful acts resulting in death.-In England, and in the different states of the Union, statutes have been enacted providing for compensation for injuries resulting in death, caused by the carelessness or negligence of the servants or agents of railway and other corporations.2 Generally, under these statutes, an action may be maintained for the benefit of the wife and next of kin of the deceased, by the personal representatives,3 where the party injured might have recovered damages in respect thereof, if death had not ensued. But only actual and not exemplary damages can be recovered, in the absence of special statutory regulations on the subject. In estimating damages, the jury cannot take into consideration the physical or mental sufferings of the deceased, or the sorrow, loss of society, and grief of the parties entitled to the benefit of the statute. Nor is compensation for funeral expenses, or for family mourning, recoverable. Under the California statute a jury may award exemplary damages for the death of an infant caused by negligence. Statutes giving a remedy for negligence resulting in death have no extra-territorial force; 10 and, therefore, no action will lie upon a statute of this kind outside of the state enacting it.11 Nor are these statutes designed to benefit the creditors of the deceased.12 And negligence on the part of the deceased will be a bar to an action by his personal representatives, where the de

ceased himself, if he had lived, could have maintained no action for the injury.18 So, if the person injured obtains satisfaction, by action, or by voluntary settlement and payment, before death ensues, the wrongful act which caused the injury, and all its consequences, past and future, are included, and the whole canceled together, and the liability of the wrongdoer is ended.14

1 See Stats. 9 and 10 Vict. chap. 93; 27 and 28 Vict. chap. 95.

2 See Lankford v. Barrett, 29 Ala. 700; State v. Grand Trunk R. R. Co. 60 Me. 145; 61 id. 114; Commonw. v. Vt. etc. R. R. Co. 108 Mass. 7; Kesler v. Smith, 66 No. Car. 154; State v. Railroad Co. 52 N. H. 528; Green v. Hudson River R. R. Co. 2 Abb. Ct. App. 277; 28 Barb.9; Dickinson v. Northeastern Railw. Co. 2 Hurl. & C. 735; Osborn v. Gillett, Law R. 8 Exch. 88.

3 Keller v. New York Cent. R. R. Co. 2 Abb. Ct. App. 480: 24 How. Pr. 172; Kramer v. Market etc. R. R. Co. 25 Cal. 434; Andrews v. Hart ford etc. R. R. Co. 34 Conn. 57.

4 Senior v. Ward, 1 El. & E. 385.

5 Penn'a R. R. Co. v. Henderson, 51 Pa. St. 315; Brady v. Chicago, 4 Biss. 448; Mitchell v. New York Cent. etc. R. R. Co. 2 Hun, 535; Blake v. Midland Railw. Co. 18 Q. B. 93.

6 Lehman v. City of Brooklyn, 29 Barb. 234; and see Telfer_v. North. etc. R. R. Co. 1 Vroom, 188; Penn'a R. R. Co. v. Books, 57 Pa. St. 339; Blake v. Midland Railw. Co. 18 Q. B. 93; Grotenkemper v. Harris, 25 Ohio St. 510.

7 Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Shannon, 43 Ill. 338; Paterson v. Wallace, 1 Macq. H. L. Cas. 748.

8 Dalton v. South-eastern Railw. Co. 4 Com. B. N. S. 296. But no deduction from the amount to which the parties may be entitled is allowed on account of any insurance on the life of the deceased: Pittsburgh etc. R. R. Co. v. Thompson, 56 Ill. 138; Harding v. Townsend, 43 Vt. 536.

9 Myers v. San Francisco, 42 Cal. 215; and see Taylorv. West. Pacif. R. R. Co. 45 Cal. 323; Becker v. Crow, 7 Bush, 198; Goodsell v. Hartford etc. R. R. Co. 33 Conn. 51. In Pennylvania, medical and funeral expenses may be considered in assessing damages: Cleveland etc. R. R. Co. v. Rowan, 66 l'a. St. 393.

10 See Selma etc. R. R. Co. v. Lacy, 49 Ga. 106; Mahler v. Norwich etc. Transp. Co. 35 N. Y. 352.

11

Richardson v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 98 Mass. 85.

12 Whitford v. Panama R. R. Co. 23 N. Y. 465; Waldo v. Goodsell, 33 Conn. 432.

13 Tucker v. Chaplin, 2 Car. & K. 730; Witherley v. Regents' Canal Co. 12 Com. B. N. S. 2; Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v. Burke, 6 Coldw. 45; Wilds v. Hudson River R. R. Co. 24 N. Y. 430.

14 Dibble v. New York etc. R. R. Co. 25 Barb. 183; Reade v. Great Eastern Railw. Co. Law R. 3 Q. B. 555.

§ 86. Liability to indictment.-A corporation cannot be guilty of an offense of which a corrupt intent is an

« AnteriorContinuar »