Weaver v. Iselin

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Weaver v. Iselin, 161 Pa. 386 (Pa. 1894)
29 A. 49; 1894 Pa. LEXIS 703
Collum, Fell, Green, Sterrett, Williams

Weaver v. Iselin

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

We have no doubt as to the right of the plaintiffs to amend, in the manner proposed, even at this stage of the case. It appearing that the name of Susanna Weaver, wife of plaintiff George Weaver, was omitted from the record by mistake, and counsel having moved to amend by adding her name as one of the plaintiffs, it is ordered that the record be amended accordingly.

We are satisfied from an examiñation of the record that this case depended on questions of fact which were clearly for the exclusive determination of the jury. The controlling questions were, on the one hand, the alleged negligence of the defendant, *391and on the other, the alleged contributory negligence of the deceased. The testimony, bearing on each of these and subordinate questions, was fairly submitted to the jury in a clear and adequate charge, which appears to be entirely free from any error of which defendant has any reason to complain. The only logical inference that can be drawn from the verdict for plaintiffs, is that the jury found that the defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of the boy’s death, and that the latter was not guilty of any negligence which contributed to the fatal result. That -finding was not unwarranted by the testimony; and hence, in the absence of any erroneous rulings or instructions by the learned trial judge, the verdict and judgment thereon must be regarded as conclusive. Neither of the specifications is sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Cited By
10 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Amendment — Parties—Practice, Supreme Court. The record of an action, brought by a father to recover damages for the death of his minor son, may be amended in the Supreme Court by the addition of the name of the mother as a plaintiff. Negligence — Infant—Master and servant — Contributory negligence. In an action against a mine owner by a father to recover damages for the death of his son, fourteen years of age, it is proper to submit the question of plaintiff’s contributory negligence to the jury, where the evidence is conflicting as to whether the father permitted the boy to work in the mine without any consideration as to where he was to work, and without using any precautions to protect him from danger. In such case the question of defendant’s negligence is for the jury where there is evidence that the boy was employed to drive a mule, and had imposed upon him the additional task of opening a door to see whether the track ahead was clear, and there was evidence that a regular attendant should have been placed at the door, and that the absence of such attendant was the cause of the accident.