McHugh v. Schlosser, 237

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Writing for the Court: MR. JUSTICE WILLIAMS:
• Citation: 159 Pa. 480,28 A. 291
• Docket Number: 237
• Decision Date: 22 January 1894
• Parties: McHugh v. Schlosser et al., Appellants

28 A. 291

159 Pa. 480

McHugh
v.
Schlosser et al., Appellants

No. 237

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 22, 1894

Argued: November 3, 1893

Appeal, No. 237, Oct. T., 1893, by defendants, John B. Schlosser and G. C. Dellenbach, from judgment of C.P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Feb. T., 1892, No. 453, on verdict for plaintiff, Mary McHugh.

Trespass for damages for death of plaintiff's husband, alleged to have been caused by exposure while being wrongfully and improperly removed from defendants' hotel. Before McCLUNG, J.

At the trial, it appeared that on Jan. 31, 1891, A. B. McHugh went to defendants' hotel, registered, and was assigned a room, paying for it at the time. There was evidence that for several days prior to his coming to defendants' house he had been drinking heavily. The manner in which deceased was removed from the hotel is described in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

The court charged in part as follows:

"Now, having eliminated from the case the question as to whether this man went of his own motion, simply after a request, or whether he was thrust out, and assuming that you have decided that he was thrust out (because, under my instructions, unless you do find that you cannot go any further), [then the question here is, was this man thrust out as a drunken man who was persisting in disorderly conduct in that hotel, or was he a sick man whose annoyance, if his conduct was annoying, came from his sickness. And for that purpose it doesn't make any difference whether his sickness, if he was actually sick, came from the abuse of liquor or from any other cause. Simply because a man has made himself sick by liquor, if he is a sick man, a hotel-keeper cannot treat him as a willful wrongdoer; he must treat him as a sick man and regulate his conduct accordingly.]" [3] . . . .

"This plaintiff sues for compensation for her husband's death. It is not necessary, I take it, that she should prove how much money he was making, one year and the other. His age was proven and the condition of his health was proven, as also his habits, and it is for you to say how much his life was worth to her; how much better off financially she would be with him than without him; how much would he earn, and how much of those earnings would go to her and her children. This is for you to say, gentlemen; and while you have no very exact rule to go by, yet it is a question upon which your judgment is as good as that of the court, and the laws leave it to you, and can safely leave it to you. It is a matter of cold dollars and cents when it comes to this question, and it is perfectly proper for you to take into account the proof that is here as to this man's condition, the condition of his health, and as to his habits. They will affect both the probabilities as to the length of his life and the amount of money that he will earn. A man that has a disease that is likely to carry him off at 39 years of age, his life might not be so valuable as an older man in better health. Take all these things into consideration and render such a verdict as under the evidence and instructions of the court your conscience will warrant."

Defendant's points were among others as follows:

"1. This is an action to recover the monetary value of the life of A. D. McHugh to his widow and children. As plaintiffs have not shown, nor attempted to show, the earning power of the deceased, or that he contributed anything to their support, nothing more than nominal damages can be recovered in this action." Refused. [1]

"3. If the deceased remained in defendants' house after the evening of January 31, 1891, and so acted as to annoy the other guests of the house, and abused and soiled the room and furniture of defendants, it was their duty to their other guests and their right to remove him, provided they used no unnecessary force or violence. Answer: Refused as put. If the annoying acts were willful, defendants could remove decedent in the manner stated in the point. If, however, they were the result of sickness, although they might under certain circumstances remove him, such removal must be in a manner suited to his condition." [2]

4. Stated in opinion of Supreme Court. Refused. [4]

Verdict for plaintiff for $6,175. A remittitur was subsequently filed for twenty-five per cent of the verdict. Judgment was then entered for $4,955.43. Defendants appealed.

Errors assigned were (1-4) instructions, quoting them.

The judgment is reversed and a venire facias de novo awarded.

Willis F. McCook, for appellants, cited: Act of April 26, 1855, P.L. 309; R.R. v. Zebe, 33 Pa. 322; R.R. v. Butler, 57 Pa. 335; R.R. v. Jones, 128 Pa. 308; Allegheny City v. Zimmerman, 95 Pa. 294; Haverly v. R.R., 135 Pa. 60; Fairbanks v. Kerr & Smith, 70 Pa. 86.

John Marron, for appellee, cited: R.R. v. Keller, 67 Pa. 300; North Penna. R.R. v. Kirk, 90 Pa. 15; R.R. v. Jones, 128 Pa. 308.

Before STERRETT, C.J. GREEN, WILLIAMS, MITCHELL, DEAN and THOMPSON, JJ.

OPINION

[159 Pa. 483] MR. JUSTICE WILLIAMS:

The defendants are hotel keepers in the city of Pittsburgh. McHugh was their guest and died in an alley appurtenant to the hotel on the second day of February, 1891. Mary McHugh the plaintiff is his widow, and she seeks to recover damages for the loss of her husband, alleging that it was caused by the improper conduct of the defendants and their employees. An...