Charnogursky v. Price-Pancoast Coal Company

• Decision Date: 29 March 1915
• Docket Number: 185
• Citation: 249 Pa. 1,94 A. 451
• Parties: Charnogursky, Appellant, v. Price-Pancoast Coal Company
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

94 A. 451

249 Pa. 1

Charnogursky, Appellant, v. Price-Pancoast Coal Company

No. 185

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

March 29, 1915

Argued February 22, 1915

Appeal, No. 185, Jan. T., 1914, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C.P. Lackawanna Co., May T., 1912, No. 303, for defendant on demurrer to plaintiffs' statement of claim, in case of Albert Charnogursky and Maggie Charnogursky v. Price-Pancoast Coal Company. Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for the death of plaintiffs' son. Before NEWCOMB, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

The defendant demurred to plaintiffs' statement of claim. The court sustained the demurrer and entered judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appealed.

Error assigned was the judgment of the court.

The assignment of error is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

C. B Price, with him H. S. Kennedy, for appellant.

R. H Harris and Everett Warren, with them John P. Kelly, for appellee.

Before BROWN, C.J., POTTER, STEWART, MOSCHZISKER and FRAZER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE MOSCHZISKER:

John Charnogursky, the appellants' son, was killed in a mine fire which occurred at the defendant's colliery, April 7, 1911. The plaintiffs sued, their declaration was demurred to, and the court below entered final judgment for the defendant; hence this appeal.

The Act of May 25, 1887, P.L. 271 (Sec. 3) provides that a declaration "shall consist of a concise statement of the plaintiff's demand, as provided by the fifth section of the Act of March 21, 1806, 4 Sm. L. 326; and this has been construed to mean that, while a plaintiff need not disclose his case with the same precision of averment required in an old style narr, yet, he must exhibit a complete cause of action, and this in comprehensive and brief terms. When the suit is in trespass, especially when the charge is negligence arising out of alleged acts of omission, the grounds of complaint must be stated concisely and distinctly, so that the issues may be formed by a simple plea of "not guilty"; to do this, facts must be averred sufficient to show that a duty required by law has been breached, or neglected, by the defendant, and plainly to indicate the causal connection between this breach or neglect and the injury complained of. The declaration must give the defendant clear and exact information of the charges against him, and, although it need not anticipate defenses or aver mere underlying evidential facts, yet, the ultimate facts relied upon to show negligence must appear in unequivocal language, and these facts must be such as, standing alone, if not controverted, would entitle the plaintiff to a verdict in his favor. The plaintiff is not obliged to confine himself to a single complaint of negligence, but, if he attempts to lay more than one distinct ground, he must, in each instance aver facts sufficient to entitle him to judgment, if proved and not overcome by a lawful defense; therefore, when many separate grounds of complaint are laid in a declaration, each must be examined with like care, and a multitude of charges, none of which avers facts sufficient to make a case against the defendant, is no stronger than one insufficient averment would be. In fact, when a great number of separate, general charges of negligence is contained in a declaration, it lays the pleading open to a suspicion that the plaintiff has no knowledge of any real breach of duty on the part of the defendant, and such a...