## Facts

- Teffaine worked aboard a steam tug owned by Guissez and Cousin.
- A boiler/engine explosion killed Teffaine.
- Experts attributed the explosion to a construction defect (a defective weld) rather than any fault by Teffaine.
- The trial court declined to hold the tug owners liable under a fault-based theory because no owner fault was proven.
- The appellate court held the tug owners liable by analogizing the defective machine to the “building in ruin” liability regime, and ordered the manufacturer (Oriolle) to indemnify the owners.
- The tug owners sought review in the court of last resort.

## Issues

1. Whether the owner/guardian of a machine that causes fatal injury can be held civilly liable without proof of personal fault.
2. Whether the general “things under one’s custody” provision (Civil Code former art. 1384, para. 1) provides an independent basis for liability, rather than merely introducing specific regimes.
3. Whether the owner/guardian may avoid liability to the victim by showing the manufacturer’s fault or the hidden character of the defect.

## Decision

- The court rejected the owners’ appeal and upheld liability to Teffaine’s widow and children.
- The court sustained liability on a different legal ground than the appellate court, relying on former Civil Code article 1384, paragraph 1 (responsibility for things under one’s custody).
- The court held the tug’s owner/guardian responsible for harm caused by the thing under the owner’s care.
- The owner/guardian could not defeat the victim’s claim by proving the manufacturer’s fault or that the defect was hidden.

## Legal Principles

- Former Civil Code article 1384, paragraph 1 operates as an autonomous basis for liability for damage caused by things under one’s custody.
- Liability may be imposed without proof of the guardian’s personal negligence when the thing under custody causes the harm.
- As against the victim, the guardian cannot exonerate by showing third-party (manufacturer) fault or the latent nature of the defect.
- The case supports a presumption of liability tied to custody/control of the instrumentality causing the damage, with exoneration limited to narrowly recognized defenses (e.g., external irresistible events and the victim’s own fault).

## Conclusion

The court affirmed fault-independent liability for harm caused by a dangerous instrumentality by treating the “custody of things” clause as a direct source of responsibility, making the machine’s owner/guardian presumptively liable to the victim despite a hidden defect and potential manufacturer wrongdoing.


Guissez, Cousin & Oriolle v. Teffaine, Cass. civ., June 16, 1896