Spence v. Borough

• Decision Date: 15 July 1914
• Docket Number: 120-1914
• Citation: 57 Pa.Super. 622
• Parties: Spence, Appellant, v. Stockdale Borough
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

57 Pa.Super. 622

Spence, Appellant, v. Stockdale Borough

No. 120-1914

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

July 15, 1914

Argued April 20, 1914

Appeal by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. Washington Co., Aug. T 1912, No. 141, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Edward U Spence v. Stockdale Borough.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by a fall on a defective sidewalk. Before Taylor, J.

The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for six and one-quarter cents. Plaintiff appealed.

Error assigned amongst others was in refusing new trial.

Vernon Hazzard, for appellant.

T. H.W Fergus, with him Hugh E. Fergus, for appellee.

Before Rice, P. J., Orlady, Head, Porter, Henderson, Trexler and Kephart, JJ.

OPINION

RICE J.

As we view this case it is not necessary to recite the evidence in detail. Whether the defendant was negligent, and whether its negligence was the sole, efficient, and proximate cause of the personal injuries received by the plaintiff, or his concurring negligence contributed thereto, were questions which, under the evidence, the court was bound to submit and did submit to the jury with appropriate instructions to render a verdict for the plaintiff or the defendant in accordance with their determination of them. The defendant did not except to the submission of them or to the manner in which they were submitted in the charge. The verdict in the plaintiff's favor, interpreted in the light of the charge, implies a finding that the defendant's negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries and that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence. The plaintiff's testimony as to his injuries and the consequences resulting from them was to the effect that his knee and side were injured; that because of the injury to his knee he was disabled for a considerable time to follow his usual avocation and thereby lost the wages, specifying the amount, he would have earned; that even at the time of the trial his earning power was diminished; that he was in a hospital under treatment for a time; that he was compelled to have the attendance and treatment of physicians at his own home and at the latters' offices; and that he suffered much pain. He expressed the belief that the injury to his knee was permanent; but, even if it was not, there can be no doubt that, under his testimony, which was uncontradicted and was to some extent corroborated by that of his wife, he was entitled to recover substantial damages if he was entitled to recover at all. The amount was for the jury's determination; but clearly and beyond all question a verdict in his favor for six and one-quarter cents was not justified under the implied findings of the jury upon the other questions. It has been said that a new trial for inadequacy of damages ought not to be allowed when in the judgment of the court the verdict should have been against the prevailing party, or when a verdict appears to have been given for nominal damages only, because the jury concluded that there was no liability: 29 Cyc. of Law & Pro....