253 FEDBBAL BEFOBTBR. �acts by an agent, shall provide competent skill, and that, so far as human oare and foresight can go, he will transport them safely." �The explosion of the boiler, and the consequent injuries to the libellant, are, of themselves, prima facie evidence of neg- ligence. �In Christie v. Griggs, 2 Camp. 69, Sir James Mamfield, cliief justice, said : "I think the plaintiff bas made a prima facie case by proving his going in the coach, the accident, and the damage he has suffered. When the breaking down or over- turning of the coach is proved, negligence on the part of the owner is implied." �This case is cited with approbation by the supreme court in Stokes v. Suttonstall, supra; in Railroad Company v. Pollard, 22 Wall. 341. The case of Stokes v. Suttonstall, 13 Pet. 181, was approved, and it was declared that in a suit agaiust a railroad company for an injury to a passenger, if it appeared that the passenger was in the exercise of that degree of cai-e which might be reasonably expected from a peraon in his situation, and injuries occur to him, this is prima facie evi- dence of the carrier's liability. �In the present case, where the injury was caused by the explosion of the boiler of the steamboat, wliile the same was in charge of the servants of the boat, there can be no question that the explosion itself makes out a prima facie case of neg- ligence, and, unless this presumption is rebutted, eutitles the libellant to recover. �The question for decision upon the facts is, therefore, has the respondent rebutted this presumption? �The proof shows that the boilers of the Eeliance and her machinery were in good order. The boilers had been recently repaired and had been inspected by one of the government inspeotors at Savannah, and had been cleaned out a short time before. At the time of the explosion there were on defects apparent in the boat, her boilers or machinery. �The explosion must, therefore, have been caused either by Bome latent defect which the closest examination could not ����
