Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/461

 430

THE GREEN BAG

refused to sanction the enforcement of building line regulations which have been imposed by the public or the municipality when such have been prompted by aesthetic motives merely and have not been grounded upon considerations of public health or safety. City of St. Louis v. Hill, 116 110.527; Bostwick v. Sams, 95 Md. 400. The case abstracted above therefore expresses no new principle of law. It is to be noted also that it does not merely hold that " a man may not be deprived of his property because his tastes are not those of his neighbors," but goes still farther and holds that the collective public even has no right to set up a standard for him. A. A. B. NEGLIGENCE. (Evidence — Res ipsa loqui tur.) Md. — Strasburgcr v. Vogel, 63 Atlantic Reporter, 202, contains a good illustration of the limitations of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The action was for injuries to a pedestrian who was struck by a brick falling from the chimney of defendant's house. There was no evidence that the chimney was out of repair, and it was shown that certain persons were on the roof of the house and leaned on the chimney at the time the brick fell. These persons were there without defendant's knowledge, and did not get on the roof through his premises. The court declares that an inference of negligence may be deduced from all the circumstances attendant on and sur rounding an accident, if the injuries result from an event not only in its very nature destructive •of the safety of persons or property, but also so wrongful in its quality as to permit no inference except that of negligence, but holds that the evi dence in this case did not justify a charge author izing a verdict for plaintiff, unless defendant .should show that the falling of the brick was not caused by his negligence. NEGLIGENCE. (Evidence — Res ipsa loqui tur.) H. Y. — Another decision as to the limi tation of the res ipsa loquitur rule comes from New York in the case of Duhme v. HamburgAmerican Packing Company, 77 Northeastern Reporter, 386. The facts in this case were that the plaintiff, who was an infant, was standing with his mother on a pier awaiting the arrival of a transatlantic steamship, and was struck in the face by a steel hawser with which the steamship was being warped to the pier, the accident being caused by the breaking of an iron shackle with which the hawser was fastened to a mooring post. There was no evidence of negligence on the part of defendant except that arising from the sudden breaking of the shackle, and defendant showed that the pier was safe had plaintiff and his mother kept within the shelter thereof as they were

warned to do by the defendant's servants, and that the breaking of the shackle was not due to any negligence in handling the hawser or any defect in the material. The court announces that the rule of res ipsa loquitur, where the relations between the parties are not of a contractual character, can only operate where there are actu ally shown such facts and circumstances in the nature of defendant's undertaking and of the accident itself from which the jury are able, if not compelled, to draw the inference of negli gence, citing Griffen v. Menice, 166 N. Y. 188, 59 N. E. Rep. 925. 52 L. R. A. 922, 82 Am. St. Rep. 630. If the plaintiff were a passenger, that relation would require the exercise of the highest degree of care, and would render the defendant liable for the slightest neglect against which human prudence and foresight might have guarded. This plaintiff, however, is held not to be so cir cumstanced towards the defendant as that the mere fact of the accident furnished a reason for the inference of negligence, or exempted him from the general rule that negligence must be established, actually or inferentially, from facts proved when charged as a cause of action. NUISANCE. (Injunction.) U. S. S. C. — The Chicago Drainage Case, officially known as State of Missouri v. State of Illinois, which was decided on demurrer in 21 Supreme Court Reporter, 331, has reached a final decision which is reported in 26 Supreme Court Reporter, 268. It is there held that the discharge into the Mississippi River from an artificial drainage canal of the sewage of Chi cago mixed with a large amount of pure water from Lake Michigan, will not be enjoined at the instance of the State of Missouri on the ground that the sewage poisons the water supply, where the evidence tending to show such infection, though disclosing an increase in the deaths from typhoid fever in St. Louis, nevertheless left it doubtful whether the typhoid bacilius can and does survive the journey and reach the intake of St. Louis in the Mississippi, and affirmatively showed other possible sources of infection in the discharge of sewage above the St. Louis intake from other towns and cities, some of which were situated in Missouri. PROPERTY (Literary Production.) Neb. — A rather unusual case involving questions of lit erary property has arisen in Nebraska in a suit by the State v. State Journal Company. 106 Northwestern Reporter, 434. It appears that the state entered into a contract with the State Journal Company for the publication of a num ber of volumes of the Nebraska official reports.