Parrot v. Wells, Fargo & Co. (The Nitro-Glycerine Case)
21 L. Ed. 206, 15 Wall. 524 (1872)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party is not liable for injuries caused by an unavoidable accident that occurs while they are engaged in a lawful business, unless negligence is proven. A common carrier is not negligent for damage caused by the contents of a package if it had no knowledge, and no reason to suspect, that the contents were dangerous.
Facts:
- The Defendants, an express carrier company, leased a portion of a building owned by the Plaintiff.
- In the regular course of business, Defendants received a wooden case for shipment, which gave no outward indication of being dangerous.
- Unbeknownst to the Defendants, the case contained nitro-glycerine, a highly explosive and dangerous substance.
- While the case was on the leased premises, the nitro-glycerine leaked and exploded.
- The explosion caused extensive damage to the Plaintiff's building, both in the portion leased by the Defendants and in other areas.
- Neither the Defendants nor their employees knew the contents of the case, had any means of knowing its contents, or had any reason to suspect its dangerous character.
Procedural Posture:
- The Plaintiff (property owner) sued the Defendants (express carriers) in the Circuit Court for the District of California for trespass to recover for damages to his building.
- The case was tried by the court without a jury.
- The Circuit Court found that the Defendants were not negligent and therefore not liable for the extensive damage caused by the explosion to the portions of the building not leased by them.
- The Plaintiff brought the case to the Supreme Court of the United States to challenge the lower court's judgment on the issue of liability.
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 common carrier liable for damages caused by the accidental explosion of a package when the carrier was innocently ignorant of its dangerous contents and had no reason to suspect a hazard?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Field
No. A common carrier is not liable for damages caused by the accidental explosion of a package if they were innocently ignorant of its dangerous contents. Liability for such an injury is based on negligence, which is the failure to exercise the care that a reasonable and prudent person would use under the circumstances. The law does not presume that a carrier knows the contents of all packages and does not require them to inspect packages when there are no circumstances to arouse suspicion. The duty to disclose dangerous contents lies with the shipper. Because the Defendants were innocently ignorant of the danger and handled the package in the usual manner, they were not negligent. Therefore, the explosion was an unavoidable accident for which they are not responsible, and the resulting loss must be borne by the sufferer.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that liability in non-contractual tort actions hinges on fault or negligence, not merely on the fact that an injury occurred. It establishes that for common carriers, the standard of care does not include a duty to inspect packages absent suspicious circumstances. The decision places the responsibility to disclose hazardous materials squarely on the shipper, thereby protecting carriers and other handlers who are 'innocently ignorant' from strict liability for accidents they could not reasonably foresee. This precedent is fundamental in tort law for defining negligence and allocating risk in commercial transportation.
