of contributory negligence. There may be some substantial difference between these apparently contradictory views, but for the most part the disagreement is verbal only. All courts must agree that the plaintiff is bound to present a case which discloses that he exercised due care or was free from negligence, or, as it sometimes has been expressed, he must not show that he failed to exercise due care 5

-otherwise a nonsuit must be awarded, a verdict directed in favor of the defendant, or a demurrer to the evidence sustained but it must also be conceded, as it generally is, that he is under no obligation to prove the performance of any particular act by way of precaution against injury. If he succeeds in establishing a prima facie case-that is, one from which it does not appear that he was negligent-the defendant has cast upon him the burden of introducing evidence in rebuttal thereof. In this sense it is true that the "burden of proof" is on the defendant. But in the sense, not of making a case for the jury's decision, but of producing sufficient evidence to warrant a verdict, it would seem that the burden must rest on the plaintiff to show that he or his intestate was free from contributory negligence.10 A majority of courts, however, assert that the defendant, to be entitled to a verdict on the issue, must bear the burden of establishing the fact of contributory negligence by a preponderance of the evidence.11

163. Evidence Establishing Prima Facie Case.-Although the question whether the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care is in form an affirmative proposition, yet it is not necessarily to be proved by affirmative testimony addressed directly to its support.12 It may be

10. Witting v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 101 Mo. 631, 14 S. W. 743, 20 A. S. R. 636, 10 L.R.A. 602; Gonzales v. New York, etc., R. Co., 38 N. Y. 440, 98 Am. Dec. 58; Flannegan v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 40 W. Va. 436, 21 S. E. 1028, 52 A. S. R. 896. Note: 10 Ann. Cas. 10.

6. Southern Exp. Co. v. Williamson, Ala. 300, 9 So. 252, 25 A. S. R. 47; 66 Fla. 286, 63 So. 433, L.R.A.1916C Pullman Palace-Car Co. v. Adams, 120 1208; Blanchard v. Lake Shore, etc., Ala. 581, 24 So. 921, 74 A. S. R. 53, R. Co., 126 Ill. 416, 18 N. E. 799, 9 45 L.R.A. 767; Dallas, etc., R. Co. v. A. S. R. 630; Louisville R. Co. v. Hib- Spicker, 61 Tex. 427, 48 Am. Rep. bitt, 139 Ky. 43, 129 S. W. 319, 139 297. A. S. R. 464; McLane v. Perkins, 92 Me. 39, 42 Atl. 255, 43 L.R.A. 487; Gahagan v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 1 Allen (Mass.) 187, 79 Am. Dec. 724; Gavett v. Manchester, etc., R. Co., 16 Gray (Mass.) 501, 77 Am. Dec. 422; Marsh v. Koons, 78 Ohio St. 68, 84 N. E. 599, 125 A. S. R. 688, 14 Ann. Cas. 621, 16 L.R.A. (N.S.) 647; Achtenhagen v. Watertown, 18 Wis. 331, 86 Am. Dec. 769; Prideaux v. Mineral Point, 43 Wis. 513, 28 Am. Rep. 558. Note: 10 Ann. Cas. 7. 7. Note: 10 Ann. Cas. 9.

8. Treadwell v. Whittier, 80 Cal. 574, 22 Pac. 266, 13 A. S. R. 175, 5 L.R.A. 498; Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Howard, 124 Ind. 280, 24 N. E. 892, 19 A. S. R. 96, 8 L.R.A. 593; Oklahoma City v. Reed, 17 Okla. 518, 87 Pac. 645, 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1083 and note; Dallas, etc., R. Co. v. Spicker, 61 Tex. 427, 48 Am. Rep. 297.

9. Georgia Pac. R. Co. v. Davis, 92

See EVIDENCE, vol. 10, p. 897. 11. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. V. Horts, 93 U. S. 291, 23 U. S. (L. ed.) 898; Buesching v. St. Louis Gaslight Co., 73 Mo. 219, 39 Am. Rep. 503; Wright v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 74 N. H. 128, 65 Atl. 687, 124 A. S. R. 949, 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 832; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Anglin, 99 Tex. 349, 89 S. W. 966, 2 L.R.A.(N.S.) 386.

Notes: 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1176; 10 Ann. Cas. 10.

12. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, 225 Ill. 50, 80 N. E. 56, 116 A. S. R. 102 and note; Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. v. Hunter, 11 Wis. 160, 78 Am. Dec.

inferred from the circumstances attending the injury.18 If all the circumstances under which the injury was received are proved, and there is nothing in the conduct of the plaintiff to which the injury may be attributed in whole or in part, due care may be inferred according to a majority of courts, from the absence of all appearance of fault. In some jurisdictions, however, the plaintiff is under an obligation to make a showing of due care, and if there is no evidence one way or the other on the question, he is not entitled to have the question of contributory negligence submitted to the jury.15 But if, owing to the circumstances, the evidence of care is weak, it does not follow that the question is not for the consideration of the jury. If there is any evidence on the subject, the case should be submitted to the jury's decision. Less evidence is required of a personal representative as to the care exercised by his intestate than is demanded. of one suing in his own behalf.16 In the absence of the testimony of eyewitnesses or other direct evidence, it seems that the plaintiff will be deemed to have established a prima facie case by proof that the deceased was a man of temperate habits and careful and cautious In some jurisdictions, when the action is for death and there are no eyewitnesses of the occurrence, the plaintiff, on proof that his intestate was habitually careful, is given the benefit of a presumption-said to be based on the instinct of self-preservationthat the deceased was in the exercise of due care at the time of the injury. Under such circumstances it is error to grant a motion for nonsuit.18 In some of the cases, however, evidence as to a person's

699; Achtenhagen v. Watertown, 18 Wis. 331, 86 Am. Dec. 769.

Note: 10 Ann. Cas. 9.

13. Wright v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 74 N. H. 128, 65 Atl. 687, 124 A. S. R. 949, 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 832; Johnson v. Hudson River R. Co., 20 N. Y. 65, 75 Am. Dec. 375.

14. Stevens v. United Gas, etc., Co., 73 N. H. 159, 60 Atl. 848, 70 L.R.A. 119; Oklahoma City v. Reed, 17 Okla. 518, 87 Pac. 645, 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1083 and note; Milwaukee. etc., R. Co. v. Hunter, 11 Wis. 160, 78 Am. Dec. 699. Note: 10 Ann. Cas. 9, 10.

15. McLane v. Perkins, 92 Me. 39, 42 Atl. 255, 43 L.R.A. 487; Wright v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 74 N. H. 128, 65 Atl. 687, 124 A. S. R. 949, 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 832; Wieland v. Delaware, etc., Canal Co., 167 N. Y. 19, 60 N. E. 234, 82 A. S. R. 707.

Note: 10 Ann. Cas. 9.
16. Note: 10 Ann. Cas. 9.

17. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, 225 Ill. 50, 80 N. E. 56, 116 A. S. R. 102 and note; Burns v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 69 Ia. 450, 30 N. W. 25, 58 Am. Rep. 227.

Note: 10 Ann. Cas. 9.

18. Wabash R. Co. v. De Tar, 141 Fed. 932, 73 C. C. A. 166, 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 352; Casey v. Chicago R. Co., 269 Ill. 386, 109 N. E. 984, L.R.A. 1916B 824 and note; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Parish, 28 Ind. App. 189, 62 N. E. 514, 91 A. S. R. 120; Christopherson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 135 Ia. 409, 109 N. W. 1077, 124 A. S. R. 284; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Moffatt, 60 Kan. 113, 55 Pac. 837, 72 A. S. R. 343: Mynning v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 64 Mich. 93, 31 N. W. 147, 8 A. S. R. 804; Lyman v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 66 N. H, 200, 20 Atl. 976, 11 L.R.A. 364; Smith v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 70 N. H. 53, 47 Atl. 290, 85 A. S. R. 596; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Middleton, 57

habits or custom has been held incompetent to establish his freedom from negligence, even though there is no direct evidence as to the matter in question.19

164. Sufficiency of Evidence to Authorize Verdict.-To support a verdict in his favor the plaintiff is under no obligation of producing direct evidence to show freedom from fault on his part.20 The fact may be shown by circumstantial evidence, or it may be inferred by the jury from circumstances appearing in the proof. But it has been held that where circumstances are relied upon in the absence. of direct evidence to show a lack of contributory negligence, they should point, by a fair and reasonable inference, to such conclusion. When the action is to recover for a death, and there are no eyewitnesses, the jury are authorized to find that the deceased was in the exercise of due care from evidence that he was in the prime of life, of good health, and of careful habits. And it has been held that the presumption arising from the instinct of self-preservation should be taken into account, and that the jury are justified in assuming that the deceased was not doing a negligent act when he was injured, if the injury can be accounted for without contributory negligence on his part. But when it is once shown that the conditions were such that the decedent, by the exercise of his faculties of sight and hearing, might have averted the disaster, it becomes necessary for the plaintiff to go a step further and give some affirmative evidence from which the jury can find that the decedent was free from contributory negligence. Of course, all of the evidence, whether produced by the plaintiff or the defendant, is to be considered by the jury in determining whether the plaintiff was at fault. And the evidence given by the plaintiff does not go any further toward

N. J. L. 154, 31 Atl. 616, 51 A. S.
R. 597; Johnson v. Hudson River R.
Co., 20 N. Y. 65, 75 Am. Dec. 375;
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Weber, 76 Pa.
St. 157, 18 Am. Rep. 407; Cassidy v.
Angell, 12 R. I. 447, 34 Am. Rep.
690.

Notes: 116 A. S. R. 118; 33 L.R.A.
(N.S.)_1110 et seq.; 10 Ann. Cas. 9.
19. Elliot v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.,
5 Dak. 523, 41 N. W. 758, 3 L.R.A.
363; Chase v. Maine Cent. R. Co.,
77 Me. 62, 52 Am. Rep. 744; Wright
v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 74 N. H. 128,
65 Atl. 687, 124 A. S. R. 949, 8 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 832; Zucker v. Whitridge, 205
N. Y. 50, 98 N. E. 209, Ann. Cas.
1913D 1250, 41 L.R.A.(N.S.) 683.
Note: L.R.A.1916B 828.

20. Note: 10 Ann. Cas. 10.
1. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Parish,

28 Ind. App. 189, 62 N. E. 514, 91 A. S. R. 120; Stevens v. United Gas, etc., Co., 73 N. H. 159, 60 Atl. 848, 70 L.R.A. 119.

Notes: 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1138; 10 Ann. Cas. 10.

2. Note: 10 Ann. Cas. 10.

3. Adams v. Iron Cliffs Co., 78 Mich. 271, 44 N. W. 270, 18 A. S. R. 441. See also Northern Cent. R. Co. v. State, 31 Md. 357, 100 Am. Dec. 69. Note: 10 Ann. Cas. 10.

4. Wieland v. Delaware, etc., Canal Co., 167 N. Y. 19, 60 N. E. 234, 82 A. S. R. 707.

5. Southern Exp. Co. v. Williamson, 66 Fla. 286, 63 So. 433, L.R.A.1916C 1208; Yergy v. Helena Light, etc., Co., 39 Mont. 213, 102 Pac. 310, 18 Ann. Cas. 1201.

Note: 10 Ann. Cas. 11.

maintaining the issue than does evidence of equal weight and credibility produced by the defendant. The fact that the plaintiff, in making out his case, introduces evidence tending to prove his own contributory negligence does not change the nature of the issue. The affirmative of the issue on the question of the plaintiff's negligence is still with the defendant, and the fact that the defendant may use the evidence introduced by the plaintiff to support that side of the issue does not shift the burden of proof from the defendant to the plaintiff.6

6. Note: 10 Ann. Cas. Cas. 11.

NEUTRALITY LAWS

See WAR.

200