Fero v. . the Buffalo and State Line Railroad Company
22 N.Y. 209 (1860)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The degree of care required of a person in the exercise of their rights is proportional to the danger of the activity. When an activity poses a great danger of injury to others, the person conducting it must exercise the utmost care and vigilance to avoid causing harm.
Facts:
- The defendants' locomotive was stationary on a side track within a village.
- The locomotive was positioned approximately thirty feet from the plaintiff's house, which was under construction.
- A strong wind was blowing directly from the engine toward the house.
- While stationary, the locomotive emitted large quantities of coals and sparks.
- The defendants' employees paid no attention to the sparks or the danger they posed.
- The wind carried the sparks into the plaintiff's house through a partly open door, igniting a fire that consumed the building.
Procedural Posture:
- The owner of the destroyed property sued the railroad company in a trial court for damages.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- The defendants objected to the trial judge's jury instruction, which stated that the defendants were bound to use the 'utmost care' under the circumstances.
- The defendants also objected to the judge's refusal to instruct the jury that the plaintiff could not recover if the engine was of proper construction and used with 'ordinary care'.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed the judgment to the state's highest court, arguing the judge's instructions on the standard of care and contributory negligence were legal error.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a railroad company required to exercise the 'utmost care' to prevent the emission of sparks from its locomotive when it is stationary in a populated village near flammable property under conditions that create a high risk of fire?
Opinions:
Majority - Bacon, J.
Yes, under such circumstances, a railroad company is bound to use the utmost care. The court held that the degree of care required must be proportionate to the danger of the activity. While operating a locomotive with a proper spark arrester in the open country might only require ordinary care, the situation changes dramatically in a densely populated village where wooden buildings are in close proximity, a strong wind is blowing, and the engine is emitting large quantities of sparks. Citing Kelsey v. Barney, the court affirmed that where the consequences of negligence could be severe and the means of avoiding injury are within a party's power, ordinary care demands the 'utmost degree of human vigilance and foresight.' The court also held that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent as a matter of law for the lawful use of his own property, stating it would be a 'startling proposition' to hold that placing a building in an exposed position on one's own land removes it from the protection of the law. The question of whether leaving the door open constituted negligence was a question of fact properly left for the jury to decide.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a flexible, context-dependent standard of care in negligence law, rejecting a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach. It solidifies the principle that the duty of care scales with the foreseeable risk of harm. For activities that are inherently dangerous or become so due to specific circumstances (like weather and location), the required level of care heightens from 'ordinary' to 'utmost.' The ruling also limits the contributory negligence defense by clarifying that the lawful, ordinary use of one's own property, even if it increases exposure to risk, does not automatically constitute culpable negligence that would bar recovery.
