here, as in other cases, where the inference to be drawn from the facts proved is so plain that fair-minded men could not debate about it, the judge may properly decide it by a peremptory instruction.58 § 1678. Evidence Failing to Connect the Negligence with the Accident. In an action for damages for negligence, where the evidence entirely fails to connect the negligence with the fact of the accident, the court should direct the jury that the plaintiff cannot recover; 57 though in many cases the physical facts surrounding the accident will be such as to create a probability that the accident 56 For instances where the question was held to be a question for the jury, see 2 Thomp. Neg., p. 1100, § 12. It is held in Missouri that "when there is no conflict in the testimony, and all causes contributing to produce an injury are known and unquestioned, whether a given act in the chain of causa tion is the remote or proximate cause of such injury, is a question of law for the court." Henry v. St. Louis etc. R. Co., 76 Mo. 288, 293. In such cases the court will decide the question as matter of law, either upon demurrer to a petition, declaration or complaint (Bank of Commerce v. Ginocchio, 27 Mo. App. 661), or upon clear and undisputed evidence presented at the trial. It is a rule in Pennsylvania that, where, in actions for damages for negligence, there is any dispute about the facts, the question of remote or proximate cause is for the jury. But where the facts are not disputed, the court should determine the question as a matter of law. West Mahanoy Tp. v. Watson, 112 Pa. St. 574, 3 Atl. 866, per Paxson, J.; West Mahanoy Tp. v. Watson, 116 Pa. St. 344, 9 Atl. 430, 433; Seymour V. Union Stock Yards & Transit Co., 224 Ill. 579, 79 N. E. 950. It is, however, always a question for the court, whether or not offered evidence would have a tendency towards showing proximate cause. Cincinnati St. Ry. Co. v. Murray's Admr., 53 Ohio St. 570, 42 N. E. 596, 30 L. R. A. 508. 57 Holman v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 62 Mo. 562; post, § 1720; Hoffman v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 214 Pa. 87, 63 Atl. 409; Schell v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 134 Wis. 142, 113 N. W. 657. The fact, that an inference that an accident is due to a cause other than the negligence of defendant could be drawn as reasonably as the inference that it is not, does not present a case of res ipsa loquitur. McGrath v. St. Louis Transit Co., 197 Mo. 97, 94 S. W. 872. See also Caudle v. Kirkbridge, 117 Mo. App. 412, 93 S. W. 868. Where the cause of an accident is merely conjectural, it should not go to the jury. Powers v. Pere Marquette R. Co., 143 Mich. 379, 106 N. W. 117; Atchison T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Baumgartner, 74 Kan. 148, 85 Pac. 822. Nor does the mere presumption, that a deceased would exercise due care in avoiding danger supply connection with defendant. Powers v. Pere Marquette R. Co., supra. was the result of negligence, in which case the physical facts are themselves evidential, and furnish what the law terms evidence of negligence, in conformity with the maxim res ipsa loquitur.58 But the decisions do not apply this principle with uniform consistency. Thus, where, in an action against a railroad company for killing the plaintiff's cow, the only evidence was that the bell of the defendant's locomotive was not rung nor the whistle sounded, as it approached a public crossing where the cow was run over and killed, it was held that the court ought to have directed a verdict. for the defendant, because there was no evidence connecting the negligence of the defendant with the fact of the accident.59 On 58 See 2 Thomp. Neg., p 1227 et seq. Illustrations of this principle will be found in Kearney v. London etc. R. Co., L. R. 5 Q. B. 411 and L. R. 6 Q. B. 759, 2 Thomp. Neg. 1220; Byrne v. Boadle, 2 Hurl. & Colt, 722, 33 L. J. (Exch:) 13; 9 L. T. (N. s.) 450; 12 Week. 279; Briggs v. Oliver, 4 Hurl. & Colt. 403, 35 L. J. (Exch.) 163; 14 L. T. (N. s.) 412; 14 Week. 658; Mullen v. St. John, 57 N. Y. 567; Vincett v. Cook, 4 Hun (N. Y.), 318; Lyons v. Rosenthal, 11 Hun (N. Y.), 46; Warren v. Kaufman, 2 Phila. (Pa.) 259; Hays v. Gallagher, 72 Pa. St. 136; Thomas v. Western Union Tel. Co., 100 Mass. 156; Buesching v. St. Louis Gas Light Co., 73 Mo. 219, reversing 6 Mo. App. 85; 6 Cent. L. J. 458. Compare Scott v. London etc. Dock Co., 10 Jur. (N. s.) 1108; Higgs v. Maynard, 12 Jur. (N. s.) 705, 1 Harr. & Ruth. 581, 14 Week. Rep. 610, 14 L. T. (N. S.) 332; Lane v. Salter, 4 Rob. (N. Y.) 239; Worster v. Fortysecond St. R. Co., 50 N. Y. 203; Maguire v. Fitchburg R. Co., 146 Mass. 379, 15 N. E. 904; Scharff v. Southern Ill. Const. Co., 115 Mo. App. 157, 92 S. W. 126; Arkansas Tel. Co. v. Ratteree, 57 Ark. 429, 21 S. W. 1059; Kahn v. TriestRosenberg Cap. Co., 139 Cal. 340, 63 Pac. 681; Chenall v. Palmer B. Co., 117 Ga. 106, 43 S. E. 443; Donovan v. R. Co., 65 Conn. 201, 32 Atl. 352; Newark E. L. & P. Co. v. Ruddy, 62 N. J. L. 505, 41 Atl. 712; Baron v. Reading Iron Co., 202 Pa. 274, 51 Atl. 979. "Where the thing is shown to be under management of defendant or his servants and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen, if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by defendants, that the accident arose from want of care. Erle, C. J., in Scott v. London & St. K. Docks Co., 3 H. & C. 596. In Maryland it has been held that, if an injury results from an event not only in its very nature destructive of the safety of persons or property, but also grossly wrongful in its quality, as for example leaning on a chimney so as to displace bricks and cause them to fall in a street, an inference of negligence may be deduced. Strasburg v. Vogel, 103 Md. 85, 63 Atl. 202. 59 Holman V. Chicago etc. R. Co., 62 Mo. 562. Compare Stoneman v. Atlantic etc. R. Co., 58 Mo. 503; Owens v. Hannibal etc. R. Co., 58 Mo. 386. the other hand, where a corporation had left an unguarded stairway leading to a cellar way of his building, in the sidewalk of a public street in a populous city, and the plaintiff's husband was found dead in the excavation with its neck broken, it was held that there was evidence of negligence to go to the jury.60 § 1679. Whether the Plaintiff or the Person Injured was Guilty of Contributory Negligence: In General.-It is a general rule of law, except in cases in the admiralty courts relating to the collision of vessels, that, in an action for damages for negligence, if it appear that the negligence, that is, the want of ordinary care on the part of the plaintiff or the party killed or injured, contributed in any degree to produce the catastrophe, the plaintiff cannot recover; and that, except in one or two jurisdictions where the so-called doctrine of comparative negligence prevails, the law "has no scales to determine in such cases whose wrongdoing weighed most in the compound that occasioned the mischief." 62 There is a difference 60 Buesching v. St. Louis Gas Light Co., 73 Mo. 219; reversing 6 Mo. App. 85. 61 Lord Campbell, C. J., in Dowell v. Gen. Steam Nav. Co., 5 El. & Bl. 195; Witherly v. Regent's Canal Co., 12 C. B. (N. s.) 2, 6 L. T. (N. s.) 255; 3 Fost. & Fin. 61; Brownell v. Flagler, 5 Hill (N. Y.), 282; Robinson v. Western Pacific R. Co., 48 Cal. 409, 421; Needham v. San Francisco etc. R. Co., 37 Cal. 409; Gay v. Winter, 34 Cal. 153; Flemming v. Western Pacific R. Co., 49 Cal. 253; Hearne V. Southern Pacific R. Co., 50 Cal. 482; Johnson v. Canal etc. R. Co., 27 La. Ann. 53; Knight v. Pontchartrain R. Co., 23 La. Ann. 462; Laicher v. New Orleans etc. R. Co., 28 La. Ann. 320; Coombs v. Parington, 42 Me. 332; Munger v. Tonawanda etc. R. Co., 4 N. Y. 349; Thrings v. Central Park R. Co., 7 Robt. 616; Morris v. Phelps, 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 38; Collins v. Albany etc. R. Co., 12 Barb. (N. Y.) 492; Johnson v. Hudson River R. Co., 20 N. Y. 73; Wilds v. Hudson 61 River R. Co., 24 N. Y. 430 (revers ing 33 Barb. (N. Y.) 503), 29 N. Y. 315; Sheffield v. Syracuse etc. R. Co., 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 339; Dougan v. Champlain Transp. Co., 6 Lans. (N. Y.) 430; Baxter v. Second Ave. R. Co., 3 Robt. (N. Y.) 510; Railroad Co. v. Norton, 24 Pa. St. 465; Stiles v. Geesey, 71 Pa. St. 439; Catawissa R. Co. v. Armstrong, 49 Pa. St. 186; Heil v. Glanding, 42 Pa. St. 493; O'Brien v. Phila. etc. R. Co., 3 Phila. (Pa.) 76; Willard v. Pinard, 44 Vt. 34; Murphy v. Deane, 101 Mass. 455; McCully v. Clarke, 40 Pa. St. 399; Vanderplank v. Miller, 1 Mood. & M. 169; Vennall v. Garner, 1 Cromp. & M. 21; Lack v. Seward, 4 Car. & P. 106; Luxford v. Large, 5 Car. & P. 421; Woolf v. Beard, 8 Car. & P. 373; Kent v. Elstob, 3 East, 18; Broadwell v. Swigert, 7 B. Mon. (Ky.) 39. Instructions as to contributory negligence, post, §§ 1721 et seq.; 1739, 1762, 1764, 1765, 1791, 1792, 1793, 1794, 1807, 1808. 62 Railroad Co. v. Norton, 24 Pa. St. 469; Stiles v. Geesey, 71 Pa. St. of judicial opinion upon the question whether, in such a case, the 439; Wilds v. Hudson River R. Co., 63 The rule that the burden of Muldowney v. Illinois etc. R. Co., 433, 58 Atl. 808. Missouri: Thompson v. North Missouri R. Co., 51 Mo. 190; Hicks v. Pacific R. R., 65 Mo. 34, 64 Mo. 430; Schuerman v. Missouri R. Co., 3 Mo. App. 565; Baker v. Ry. Co., 147 Mo. 140, 48 S. W. 838. Wisconsin: Prideaux v. Mineral Point, 43 Wis. 513, 524; Hoyt V. Hudson, 41 Wis. 105; Achtenhagen v. Watertown, 18 Wis. 331; Potter v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 22 Wis. 615, 21 Wis. 372; Milwaukee etc. R. Co. v. Hunter, 11 Wis. 160. The above cases overrule the contrary doctrine, held in Dressler v. Davis, 7 Wis. 527; and Chamberlin v. Milwaukee etc. R. Co., 7 Wis. 425, 431; Pfeiffer v. Radke, 142 Wis. 512, 125 N. W. 934. Kentucky: Paducah etc. R. Co. V. Hoehl, 12 Bush (Ky.), 41; Louisville etc. Canal Co. v. Murphy, 9 Bush (Ky.) 522. Maryland: Frech v. Phila. etc. R. Co., 39 Md. 574. See Irwin v. Sprigg, 6 Gill (Md.), 200, 206; Baltimore v. Marriott, 9 Md. 160; Anne Arundel County Comrs. v. Carr, 111 Md. 141, 73 Atl. 668. Kansas: Kansas etc. R. Co. v. Pointer, 14 Kan. 37, 9 Kan. 620. Alabama: Smoot v. Wetumpka, 24 Ala. 112; Pullman Car Co. v. Adams, 120 Ala. 581, 24 South. 921, 74 Am. St. Rep. 53. Minnesota: Hocum v. Wutherick, 22 Minn. 152. New Jersey: New Jersey Express Co. v. Nichols, 32 N. J. L. 166, 33 N. J. L. 434; Durant v. Palmer, 29 N. J. L. 544; Moore v. Central R. Co., 24 N. J. L. 268; Consol. Traction Co. v. Behr, 59 N. J. L. 477, 37 Atl. 142. California: Gay v. Winter, 34 Cal. 153, 164; Robinson v. Western Pacific R. Co., 48 Cal. 409, 426; McQuilken v. Central Pacific R. Co., 50 Cal. 7. New York: the rule seems not to be settled. Warner v. New York etc. R. Co., 44 N. Y. 465 (reversing 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 299; Besiegel v. New York etc. R. Co., 14 Abb. Pr. (N. s.) 29; Curren v. Warren etc. Man. Co., 36 N. Y. 153; Suydam v. Grand Street etc. R. Co., 41 Barb. (N. Y.) 375; De Benedetti v. Mauchin, 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 213; Burke v. Broadway etc. R. Co., 34 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 239; Holbrook v. Utica etc. R. Co., 12 N. Y. 236, 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 113; Spencer v. Utica etc. R. Co., 5 Barb. (N. Y.) 337; Ryan v. Hudson etc. R. Co., 1 Jones & Sp. (N. Y.) 137; Gillespie v. Newburg, 54 N. Y. 468, 471. But see Johnson v. Hudson River R. Co., 20 N. Y. 65, 6 Duer (N. Y.), 633, 5 Duer (N. Y.), 21; Robinson v. New York etc. R. Co., 65 Barb. (N. Y.) 146; Hackford v. New York etc. R. Co., 6 Lans. (N. Y.) 381, 43 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 222; Squire v. Central Park etc. R. Co., 4 Jones & Sp. (N. Y.) 436; and Button v. Hudson River R. Co., 18 N. Y. 248. But see Whalen v. Citizens' Gas Light Co., 151 N. Y. 70, 45 N. E. 363. Vermont, Ohio, Louisiana, and Texas: Lester v. Pittsford, 7 Vt. 158; Barber v. Essex, 27 Vt. 62; Hyde v. Jamaica, 27 Vt. 443; Hill v. New Haven, 37 Vt. 501; Walker v. Westfield, 39 Vt. 246; Moore V. Shreveport, 3 La Ann. 645; Buchanan v. City of N. O., 112 La. 599, 36 South. 303, 66 L. R. A. 334, 104 Am. St. Rep. 455; Walker v. Herron, 22 Tex. 55, 61; Tex. & P. R. Co. v. Mayfield, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 415, 56 S. W. 942; Little Miami R. Co. v. Stevens, 20 Ohio, 415, 417; Gleeson v. Brummer, 152 N. Y. 353, 47 N. E. 1107. Even, however, in those jurisdictions where the burden is held to be on defendant, this does not require he do this by his own witnesses, if it otherwise may appear. Murray v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 101 Mo. 236, 13 S. W. 217, 20 Am. St. Rep. 61. See also Dowell v. Guthrie, 116 Mo. 646, 22 S. W. 893. And where the burden rests on plaintiff, yet where the evidence of con |