Palmer V Mulligan Analysis

During the early nineteenth century, the United States began to expand rapidly. Industry and factories began to become the dominant economic powerhouse in the United States, quickly overrunning the traditional farmer industry. During this time period resources, state legislatures, and judges began to bend towards those that were seen as expanding the economy rather than the bystanders. Law began to favor dynamic property that was seen as expanding the economy and doing good for the people of the country, rather than static or not expanding property. The priorities of the country began to change and can be seen through trial outcomes and the actions of the state legislatures. Prior to this explosion of creative energy the law focused on the

Palmer v. Mulligan (1805), resembled the case of Merritt v. Parker (1795), however with a different outcome. In Palmer v. Mulligan, Palmer was suing Mulligan to damages caused by his mill. Palmer’s mill burnt down and Mulligan built a new mill up river, so Palmer had to rebuild his mill further into the river in order to get enough water flow, this caused Parker to loose logs that were floating down river and he had to hire more labor to ensue this didn’t happen. Since Mulligan’s mill was upriver trash from his mill was floating down river and hitting Palmer’s mill causing damage. The court found in favor of Mulligan saying that Palmer’s problems were his own because Mulligan was not altering the flow of the river in any way, and that the “injuries” to his mill were being caused by the natural flow of the river and it was nearly ‘slight inconveniences’. (Palmer v. Mulligan 3 Cai. R. 307; 1805 N.Y. Lexis 343). This case showed the shift in favor to competition and the idea that competition was a good thing. It also demonstrated that not all interference with property would have been compensated. The law shifted to favor competition over prior appropriation. The law shifted from “sic utere” to “salus populi” reflecting that the welfare of the people should be the supreme of the law. (Salyer). It was seen that the people

The winners and losers are clearly demonstrated in the cases Ryan v. New York Central Railroad (1866) and Farwell v. Boston and Worcester Railroad (1842). In Ryan v. New York Central Railroad, a fire broke out on a railroad train and eventually spread to Ryan’s house where it burned to the ground. It was found that the train company was not at fault because it could not control how the fire would spread or foresee the damages of their negligence. (Hall 211) In Farwell v. Boston and Worcester Railroad, Farwell was suing because his hand was crushed by a train accident when another employee did not switch the train to the correct track. It was found that the employer was not responsible for the actions of their employee, moving away from the master and servant doctrine that was precedent. It also found that employees had to assume the risk of their work prior to taking the job, so they should ensure that they get paid enough money in order to assume the risk. This put the burden of injury on the the employee, and put making a safe working environment on the employee.(Hall 184). From these cases it became clear that the “winners” in the nineteenth century were those growing the economy, or the companies. In both cases it was found that the companies were not at fault and the burden of proof shifted to the employees and those affected by the