Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/258

 DUNLAP V. STBAMBOAT EBLUNCB. 251 �not prudent to rely entirely on the glass water-gauge, "which was likely to choke up and deceive the engineer. There was Bome conflict in the evidence whether it was customary on the boat to test the water by the water-cocks. �After the explosion a piece of the bottom of one of the boilers was found in the boat. It was hard and brittle, and broke under the shears. Its tensile strength had been lost to the extent of 5,000 or 6,000 pounds by being heated and chilled. It had been bumt by fire. It was in evidence that it was the duty of an engineer to prevent the burning of his boilers, and that when they were allowed to burn there was a presumption of negligence. �The Keliance was allowed to carry 80 pounds of steam, but she not unfrequently carried from 82 to 83 pounds, and it was often necessary for her to carry this amount to make up her time. Just before the explosion the steam-gauge in the cabin indicated a steam pressure of 72 pounds. �The libellant was without fault, and his injuries were re- ceived without any negligence or carelessness on his part. �The carriers of passengers are not insurers of the safety and lives of those whom they carry. Ang. on Car. § 536 ; 2 Greenl. on Ev. § 222; Christie v. Griggs, 2 Camp. 79; Israël v. Clark, e Esp. 269; Aston v. Heavier, 2 Esp. 533; Meir v. Penn. n. Co. 64 Penn. St. 225 ; McPadden v. N. Y. Cent. R. Co. 44 N. Y. 478; Danïd v. Metropolitan R. Co. L. Eep. 5 H. L. 45. �Nevertheless, a carrier of passengers is bound to exercise the utmost knowledge, skill and vigilance to carry his passen- gers in safety. Curtis v. The Rochester e Syracuse R. Co. 18 N. Y. 543; Steamboat New World v. King, 16 How. 469; Stokes V. Suttonstall, 13 Pet. 181. �In the last case cited the supreme court says : "It is cer- tainly a sound principle that a eontract to carry passengers diiïers from a eontract to carry goods. For the goods the carrier is answerable at ail events, except an aet of God and the public enemy. But, although he does not warrant the safety of the passengers at ail events, yet his undertaking and liability as to them go to this extent, that he or his agent, if he ����