Eight Dead, and the Steamboat Owners Owe Only $3,500

The wreck of the steamer Annie Faxon through a boiler explosion on the Snake River, August 14, 1893, threw the question of the owners' liability for loss of life and property into the United States district court, and Judge Hanford has just decided the case. He holds that the liability is limited by the appraised value of the vessel and pending freight. In this decision, made under the federal limited-liability shipping statutes, Judge Hanford has gone a step beyond any previous ruling by extending the statute to every description of vessel employed in inland navigation.

The Annie Faxon was owned by the Oregon Railway & Navigation Company and operated under lease to the Oregon Short Line & Utah Northern Railway Company. The boat prior to the explosion ran between Riparia, Wash., and Lewiston, Idaho, and carried a certificate of inspection dated December 12, 1892, allowing a maximum steam pressure of 135 pounds to the square inch. In June 1893 the mud-ring in the boiler was replaced by a new one and other repairs were made, but no inspection followed to determine whether the boiler was in safe condition. The day the accident occurred the steamer was going down stream, with a pressure of 110 pounds of steam and the safety valve set to blow off at 125 pounds. The entire upper works was destroyed by the force of the explosion, and eight persons were killed and fifteen wounded. Among the killed were John and Thomas Mackintosh; among the injured were Lewis T. Lawton and Daniel H. Bechtold.

Upon petition of the companies, the court, as a court of admiralty, made an order for the appraisement of the vessel and freight pending, and required all persons claiming damages to submit proof of their claims. The appraisement showed a valuation of $3,500. Among the claimants were Lawton and Bechtold, the injured passengers, and the widows of John and Thomas Mackintosh, each appearing as administratrix of her husband's estate. They contended that the injuries were caused by negligence and contested the right of the owner and lessee to the benefit of the limited liability act.

Judge Hanford found that the explosion occurred because the boiler was defective and that there was negligence on the part of someone in the service of the company in allowing the boiler to be used without having had it inspected. But there was no evidence to prove that any managing officer had personal knowledge of the age or condition of the boiler, or of the failure to inspect it. Under these facts, the court held that the owners are not exempt, but are entitled to the limitation of liability fixed by the statute.

"It is not pretended," Judge Hanford wrote, "that any managing officer of the petitioning corporations did have actual personal knowledge of the defective condition of the boiler, or of the failure to inspect the same after the alterations were made. But it is insisted that knowledge must be imputed to them, or that they are guilty of negligence for failure to acquaint themselves with facts which could have been discovered if they had been vigilant. This position, if sustained by the courts, must result in fastening personal liability on ship owners for the negligence of their agents or servants contrary to the terms of the law."

The court held that the later statutes extended the limited-liability rule to all vessels used on lakes and rivers or in inland navigation, including canal boats, barges and lighters. A decree would be entered that, upon payment into court of the appraised value of the vessel and pending freight for the benefit of the claimants, the companies be forever released from all liability for damages on account of the explosion and wreck.