Sales: Incidence of Risk as Bearing on Passage of Title

1913 Michigan law review  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... out Early Journal Content at JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact RECENT IMPORTANT DECISIONS RECENT IMPORTANT DECISIONS RECENT IMPORTANT DECISIONS better opportunity than the employee to know the conditions of that tool, and the rule in the principal case is just in all cases of latent defects, where the employee's lack of knowledge is not due to negligence. NEGLIGENCc -RULE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR.-Defendant company's street car collided with a train at a crossing. Plaintiff, a passenger on the street car, charged negligence generally. Held, that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied, and the burden was on the defendant to show there was no negligence . Nagel v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis (Mo. I913), 152 S. W. 621. It is the general rule, in cases of collisions of cars, where negligence is charged generally, that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies. Elgin A. & S. . Abel v. Northampton T. Co., 212 Pa. St. 329, 4' St. Ry. Rep. 960, 6I Atl. 915. Where the collision is between cars belonging to andi under the control of different companies, the doctrine applies to the company on whose car the plaintiff was a passenger, but not to the other'company. Loudoun v. Eighth Av. R. Co., 162 N. Y. 380, 56 N. E. 988. SALES-INCIDENCE OF RISK AS BEARING ON PASSAGE OF TITE.-Plaintiff agreed to put up 10,ooo lbs. of yolks of eggs, place the same in cold storage as prepared, and ship f. o. b. to defendant as needed. Plaintiff was to pay storage and insurance till January I. By the preceding October the entire amount had been prepared and stored with the designated, cold storage company, but spoiled before January i. In an action for the price, the defendant buyer claimed that since the risk of loss of the goods was on the seller till January, title remained in the seller also, with the accompanying risk of the eggs' spoiling. Held, that title passed to the buyer in October when the entire amount of yolks had been placed ini storage, and thhat the stipulation throwing the risk on the seller after that time was an indication that title then passed. Stewart v. Henningsen Produce Co. (Kans. I9I3), 129 Pac. I1r. Ordinarily the rule is that, "Res perit domino," the tiltle and risk going together. BENJAMIN, SALES, 5th Ed., 402; WILLISTON, SALES, ? 301; SALES STREET RAILWAYS-OvERRCROWDING CARs.-Plaintiff boarded a crowded street car, and, upon leaving the car, was thrown to the ground and injured. Plaintiff's evidence on this point showed only that the car was overcrowded. Held, that the lower court properly directedl a verdict for the defendant. Seale v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co. (Mlass. 1913), ioo N. E. o120. It is not negligence as a matter of law, on tthe part of a street railway company, to permit a car to become crowded with passengers. It has been held, however, that "when a street railway company undertakes to carry large numbers of people, vastly in excess of the seating and standing capacity of its cars, and permits passengers to ride on the platform, stops its car when in such crowded condition, that o,ther persons may get upon it, and, because of the crowd, a passenger, who has boarded the car before it became crowded, is pushed off a platform to his injury, the company is guilty of negligence." Reem v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 77 Minn. 503, 80 N. W. 638; Graham v. Mc-Neill, 20 Wash. 466, 55 Pac. 631, 43 L. R. A. 300, 72 Am. St. Rep. 121. It becomes the duty of the carrier to exercise additional care commensurate with the perils and dangers in which the passengers are placed by reason of the overcrowdied condition of the car. Ly1nn v. So. 288. It is not negligence per se for a passenger to ride on the platform of a car. He may do so if the crowded condiition of the car requires it. Halverson v. Seattle Elec. Co., 35 Wash. 600, 77 Pac. i158; Graham v. McNeill, 20 Wash. 466, 55 Pac. 631, 43 L. R. A. 300, 72 Am. St.
doi:10.2307/1275481 fatcat:ccarglwlkjeofly2g7pbkwlhaq