Johnson v. Capital Fire Insurance
Johnson v. Capital Fire Insurance
Opinion of the Court
The limit of the defendant’s liability under the terms of the insurance policy was the actual cash, value of the building insured, not in any event to exceed “ What it would cost the insured to repair or replace the same with materials of like kind and quality.” It is urged that the use of the word “ restore ” instead of the word “ repair ” in the charge may have niisled the jury as to the measure of damages. If counsel thought the use of the word was objectionable, they should have called the attention of the court to it at the time. At most it was an inadvertent error which would have been corrected. “ A party may not sit silent and take his chances of a verdict, and then if it is adverse complain of'a matter which if an error would have been immediately rectified and made harmless: ” Commonwealth v. Razmus, 210 Pa. 609. The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment - is affirmed.'
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Johnson v. Capital Fire Insurance Company
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Trial — Charge—Failure to object — Inadvertent error — Harmless error — - Insurance. In an action on a policy of fire insurance it appeared that the limit of the defendant's liability under the terms of the insurance policy was the actual cash value of the building insured, not in any event to exceed “what it would cost the insured to repair or replace the same with materials of like kind and quality.” At the trial the court used the word “restore” instead of “repair” in the charge, but the trial judge’s attention was not called to the mistake at the time. Held, that the mistake was an inadvertent error which would have been corrected, and that it was not a ground for reversal. A party may not sit silent and take his chances of a verdict, and then if it is adverse complain of a matter which if an error would have been immediately rectified and made harmless.