Comey v. Philadelphia Traction Co.
Comey v. Philadelphia Traction Co.
Opinion of the Court
The instructions recited in the first specification were not only warranted by the testimony, but they were quite as favorable to the defendant company as they should have been. The excerpt, on which the remaining specification is based, is obviously the learned trial judge’s conclusion from what he properly said in the two preceding paragraphs of Ms charge, viz :
• “ The plaintiff’s injury was a serious one. I think the evidence is that it is a permanent injury; but you are the judges of the weight of the evidence as well as of the credibility of the witnesses. It seems to me the weight of the testimony is that his injury is a permanent one. But wMle it may be a permanent injury, it is clear that it does not amount to a total disability of the plaintiff. It is not a total disability from which he suffers, but a partial one. No one would undertake to say that because he has a lame ankle he could not work for a living. There may be some things which he could not do, and the fact of his lameness may be a very serious drawback to him in whatever he would do.”
It thus appears that when the alleged erroneous construction is considered, in connection with the context, and in the light of the testimony, it is not only devoid of error but entirely fair to both parties. The practice of assigning error to a single sentence, severed from the context, as was done in this case, is not to be commended.
There is nothing in either assignment of error that requires further notice.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Dennis F. Comey v. The Philadelphia Traction Company
- Cited By
- 6 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Negligence — Street railways — Electric car — Collision of wagon. In an action against a street railway company to recover damages for personal injuries, it appeared that one of defendant’s electric cars struck a carriage immediately behind a wagon driven by the plaintiff, and forced the carriage against the plaintiff’s wagon with such force as to cause the plaintiff to be thrown to the ground and injured. The court charged in effect that the plaintiff could not recover if the accident was due solely to the neglect of the driver of the carriage; that if both the driver of the carriage and tbe motorman were jointly negligent, plaintiff could recover. Held, that the instruction was not erroneous. Negligence — Damages—Charge of court. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries the court charged as follows: The plaintiff’s injury was a serious one. I think the evidence is that it is a permanent injury, but you are the judges of the weight of the evidence as well as of the credibility of the witnesses. It seems to me by the weight of the testimony that his injury is a permanent one. But while it may be a permanent injury, it is clear that it does not amount to a total disability of the plaintiff; it is not a total disability from which he suffers, but a partial one. No one would undertake to say that because he has a lame ankle he could not work for a living. There may be some things which he could not do, and the fact of his lameness may be a very serious drawback to him in whatever he would do. It is the case, therefore, of a partial but permanent disability1-, and you are to assess the damages, if you find for the plaintiff, on that basis. You are not to find damages which would represent a total destruction of the plaintiff’s ability, but for a partial injury to his ability, and you are to judge of that as reasonable men, doing nothing in anger or from prejudice, but awarding what you think simply a fair, just, and full compensation for the actual inconvenience, pain, injury, loss, and suffering which the plaintiff has undergone. Held, that the instruction was without error.