Ross v. English

Citations

• 29 S.C.L. 393

Syllabus

<p>1. In an action against the owner of a sloop, to recover from him as a common carrier, for goods shipped and lost, the charge of the presiding judge was that, from the contract with a common carrier, where loss is shewn, the burden is upon the defendant to shew such act of God, or public enemies, as will excuse him; that it is not a question of fault, as the liability of a carrier may attach when he is wholly faultless; a fortiori, if he were in fault by mismanagement or imprudence of himself or agents — that it was for the jury to decide from the testimony whether the loss was from a natural cause which no human prudence could avert; and in illustrating these principles, said to the jury, that if a waggoner should fall by a stroke pf apoplexy, loss thus ensuing, which the presence of a companion could have prevented, the waggoner in neglect of common prudence being alone, when the load was such as ordinarily required two persons, the liability of a carrier would attach.</p> <p>2. The court were of opinion, that the illustration used, qualified as it was, was correct, And that in connexion with the matter to which it referred, and instructions to the jury, it could not be properly understood as laying down that two experienced navigators were necessary on a vessel of the kind in question.</p>