50 rnnmaan amromrmiz.
` the estate on this account. ` For this reason it might be proper and con-
` venient to have the probable amount of these expenses considered in es-
timating the general damages. But as the statute, in my judgment, does
not authorize the recovery of Vdamages on any_ such account, the claim
must be rejected. ‘ A " “ V _ t
The defense of contributory negligence remains torhe considered. -
.The burden of proof in this behalf is on the defendant alleging the neg-
ligence. The only particular in which it is claimed that the conduct of
the deceased contributed to his death is that hepccupied a place on the
` forward deck instead of the cabin or the after one. Ordinarily there was
no unusual danger in being there. There was nothing to indicate that
r passengers were not allowed forward of the pilot·hous‘e. Jones does not
say that he gave the passengers any warning on the subject on this occa-
sion, though he thinks he diil speak of it at some other time in the hear-
_ ing of the deceased. If this was a dangerous position under ordinary
circumstances, it was the duty of the ownersof theboat to provide some '
means of restraining or warning passengers from going there. The fact
‘ that on this_0ccasion the deceased and two others stood on this deck just
in front of the pilot-house, right under the eyeof the pilot, without a
word or suggestion from him to th_e contrary, proves that the position
i was not regarded by thelatter as one of any particular danger.
But it is said that he was negligent in remaining there after the collis-
ion wasimminent. But that is not at all certain. * He might have thought,
_ as one of his companions did, that the safest course was to remain and
‘ . take the chance of getting on the big boat at the point of collision before
the little one wasrun down.' “ His companion, who jumped overboard,
said he did so rather than undertake to get back along the narrow space
_ between the house and gunwale, because he thought the Mikado was go-
ingto besunk} i ‘  
The evidenceis*meager`and# obscure on this point, it only appearing
that of the three persons who stood on this deck one jumped overboard
` and another sprang upon the guard of the ferry-boat and was saved, while
_`the deceased`,_"who, for aught that appears, was intending and trying to
*_ escape in the same way, was caught by the head betweenthe guard and
· pilotrhouse, as in the jaws ofavice, and crushed so that he died; and,
but for the fact that the pilot-house gave way and was pushed overboard,
’he probably would have been killed outright. ,However, the deceased
having beengplaced in this dange ous predicarnentby the fault of the de-
fendants, they are liable for his dreath, even if it appears that it was pos-
sible for him to have escaped unharmed. Thelaw does not require skill,
diligence, or good judgment from a person in such a situation or moment
‘of danger and excitement, buttregards him as one in extremis, whose con-
duct, though erroneous or unwise, it does not consider a fault. Ladd v.
_ Fbster, 31 Fed.»Rep. 831, and cases there cited. The defendants, having
* _by their concurrent negligence caused the death of the deceased, are lia·
Able, in solido, for the damages. 1 Id. 835, and cases there cited. 3 T T .
The libelant is entitled toa decree against the defendants for the sum
of $2,500, and costs and disbursements of the suit.