Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 5.djvu/246

230 230 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. 3. One undertaking a hazardous affair must take all reason- able steps to secure its successful accomplishment; the omission of any such step is gross negligence. An example of such an under- taking is the carriage of passengers. In the leading case of this sort, Philadelphia & Reading R. R. v. Derby, 1 Grier, J., said : " A distinction has been taken, in some cases, between simple negligence and great or gross negligence; and it is said that one who acts gratuitously is liable only for the latter. But this case does not call upon us to define the difference (if it be capa- ble of definition), as the verdict has found this to be a case of gross negligence. When carriers undertake to convey persons by the powerful but dangerous agency of steam, public policy and safety require that they be held to the greatest possible care and diligence. And whether the consideration for such transportation be pecuniary or otherwise, the personal safety of the passengers should not be left to the sport of chance or the negligence of careless agents. Any negligence in such cases may well deserve the epithet of ' gross.'" This is only a dictum like (Lord Holt's original statement of the doctrine of "gross negligence"); but it seems to represent current judicial opinion. It would cover all cases where one undertakes to do an act that requires a skill he does not possess. If, for instance, A, being a blacksmith, finds and takes up B's watch and attempts to repair it, he would doubt- less be held to answer for the damage. 4. Where the gratuitous undertaker does an act which is con- trary to the undertaking, he acts at his peril, though he uses due care. In a case in Massachusetts, A delivered a bond to B to be kept for him gratuitously. After a year B sent the bond by mail to A's wife, and it was lost. The majority of the court held B liable, without regard to negligence. " The complaint against him is not that he kept it negligently, or lost it by gross carelessness, but that he intentionally disposed of it in a manner not authorized by the terms of the trust. For the purposes of this case, it is wholly immaterial whether the post-office furnishes a reasonably safe mode of transmission, in the case of valuable papers of such a description, or not. The question of due diligence or gross neglect, in our opinion, is not raised by the bill of exceptions. . . . He subjected the plaintiff to a risk which he had not con- 1 14 How. 468, 485. See ace. Siegrist v. Arnot, 10 Mo. App. 197.