Funk v. Kerbaugh
| Decision Date | 02 June 1908 |
| Docket Number | 213 |
| Citation | 222 Pa. 18,70 A. 953 |
| Parties | Funk v. Kerbaugh, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued May 18, 1908
Appeal, No. 213, Jan. T., 1907, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Lancaster Co., Nov. T., 1905, No. 92, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Isaac S. Funk v. H. S. Kerbaugh Incorporated. Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for injuries to property, real and personal. Before HASSLER, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.
The verdict was as follows:
And now, to wit: December 6, 1906, we, the jurors empaneled in the above case, find in favor of Isaac S. Funk, and against H. S. Kerbaugh, Incorporated. Damages as follows:
To house
$2,000.00
To barn
1,800.00
To crops
25.00
Removing stone
75.00
For mule
150.00
Impunity damages
1,000.00
$5,050.00
Judgment was entered upon the verdict. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned was in permitting the jury to return a verdict for punitive damages.
The judgment is affirmed.
W. U Hensel, with him Philip T. Meredith and Frank S. Groff, for appellant.
H. Frank Eshleman and William H. Keller, with them John A. Coyle, for appellee.
Before FELL, BROWN, POTTER, ELKIN and STEWART, JJ.
The main question presented by this appeal is whether a recovery of punitive damages should have been allowed. The action was to recover for injuries to the plaintiff's property caused by the negligent and reckless acts of the defendant in blasting rocks in constructing a line of railroad. At a place 1,100 feet from the plaintiff's building an excavation was made 2,200 feet long and, at places, eighty feet deep through solid rock of great hardness. In blasting this rock holes were drilled to an average depth of thirty feet and charges of 4,000 pounds of dynamite were set off simultaneously. The testimony produced by the plaintiff tended to show that the work could have been done in the usual manner by lighter blasting without injury to his property; that the heavy blasting shattered and practically ruined his house and barn; that the use of heavy blasts was persisted in recklessly and defiantly for months notwithstanding his complaints.
Too great caution cannot be exercised in permitting the recovery of punitive damages for the willful or reckless act of a servant not authorized or approved by the master. The rule that permits a recovery in such cases is a harsh one and the plainest principles of justice call for caution in its application: Phila. Traction Co. v. Orbann, 119 Pa 37. But in this case the acts complained...
To continue reading
Request your trial