Pierce v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co.

• Decision Date: 23 May 1911
• Docket Number: 375
• Citation: 232 Pa. 170,81 A. 142
• Parties: Pierce, Appellant, v. Lehigh Valley Coal Company, (No. 2)
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

81 A. 142

232 Pa. 170

Pierce, Appellant, v. Lehigh Valley Coal Company, (No. 2)

No. 375

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

May 23, 1911

Argued April 11, 1911

Appeal, No. 375, Jan. T., 1910, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. Luzerne Co., March Term, 1904, No. 179, setting aside an item of damage in a verdict for plaintiff in case of Harry W. Pierce v. Lehigh Valley Coal Company. Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for injuries to land. Before FERRIS, J.

The facts appear in Pierce v. Lehigh Valley Coal Company Appellant, ante, p. 165.

Error assigned was in setting aside allowance of $2,920 awarded as compensation for delay.

The judgment is affirmed.

William S. McLean, with him John A. Opp, for appellant. -- Where the delay is caused by the plaintiff only, we concede, he is not entitled to compensation for delay, but when the defendant also assists in causing the delay, the jury may give the plaintiff reasonable compensation for the delay Mengall's Executors v. Water Co., 224 Pa. 120; Rea v. Pittsburg & Connellsville R.R. Co., 229 Pa. 106.

The damages to the plaintiff were not caused by negligence in the pursuit of a lawful business nor by accident nor inadvertence, and the law distinguishes between a case in which the injury is willful, wanton and purposely done and one caused by accident or inadvertence: Seely v. Alden, 61 Pa. 302; Little Schuylkill Nav. R.R. & Coal Co. v. Richards, 57 Pa. 142.

J. B. Woodward, with him F. W. Wheaton and John T. Lenahan, for appellee.

Before FELL, C.J., MESTREZAT, POTTER, ELKIN and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE MESTREZAT:

This was an action of trespass to recover damages for injuries which the plaintiff alleges he sustained by reason of the deposit of culm and other coal refuse upon his land from the defendant's colliery. The jury under the instruction of the court returned a special verdict in which they found for the plaintiff $6,200 damages and $2,920 as compensation for delay in payment of the sum awarded as damages. The learned court set aside the part of the verdict that allowed compensation for the delay in payment, and directed judgment to be entered for the amount of the damages. The plaintiff alleges error in the court's action in not allowing compensation for detention of the damages. This is the only question in the case.

The facts fully warranted the court in disallowing the damages awarded for the detention of the payment of the plaintiff's claim. As appears by the evidence and as stated by the court, the claim was for $50,000 and it was strongly insisted upon in its entirety at the trial. At no time did the plaintiff offer to reduce the claim or to accept any smaller sum than his original demand. The fact that the verdict in his favor was for only $6,200 shows that the demand was excessive, extortionate and unreasonable and one which the defendant was fully warranted in contesting. The officers of the defendant company would manifestly not have been justified in paying the claim. Had they done so they would have failed to perform their duty and would have been responsible to the company. It is true that the defendant company declined to pay any sum...