Parrot v. Wells, Fargo & Co. (The Nitro-Glycerine Case)

82 U.S. 524 (1872)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Parrott (P) was owner of the buildings leased to Wells (D). The lease contained covenants that the lessees would not receive in the demised premises, either for their own account or on storage, or allow any person to place therein 'gunpowder, alcohol, or any other articles dangerous from their combustibility;' that they would, during the term of the lease, 'occupy the premises solely for the business of their calling,' which was that of bankers and expressmen, and at the expiration of their term would 'quit and surrender the said demised premises with all the fixtures therein contained in as good condition as the reasonable use and wear thereof would permit, damages by the elements excepted.' Someone paid D to ship a 329 pound create full of nitroglycerine from New York to San Francisco. D was unaware of the contents. When the case arrived in San Francisco, it was placed on the wharf and discovered to be leaking. It was taken to D’s building in town to be inspected by a representative of the steamship company. In the presence of an agent of D and the steamship company, an employee of D, with a mallet and chisel, proceeded to open the case. It exploded, instantly killing all the parties present, and causing the destruction of a large amount of property, and the injuries to the buildings occupied by D. P sued D for injuries sustained. It was eventually determined that the substance contained in the case was nitro-glycerine or glonoin oil. The nitro-glycerine in some of the cans in the case had become partially decomposed, generating gases and producing pressure within the cans and a tendency to explode. P sued D in state court and D removed to federal court. The court found that neither Ds, nor any of the employees of Ds, or of the Pacific Mail Steamship Company, who had anything to do with the package in question, nor the managing agent of Ds on the Pacific coast, nor any of those killed by the explosion, knew the contents of the case in question, or had any means of such knowledge, or had any reason to suspect its dangerous character. The court held that Do was not liable. P appealed.