Hess v. American Pipe Manufacturing Co.
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- ZELINSKY Et Ux. v. Chimics (Pa. Super. Ct. 1961)
- Bosley v. Andrews (Pa. Super. Ct. 1957)
- Harclerode v. Detwiler (Bedford County Court of Common Pleas 1947)
- Howarth v. Adams Express Co. (Pa. 1921)
- Reardon v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co. (Pa. Super. Ct. 1910)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
It is settled that mere fright unaccompanied by physical in- ■ jury is not sufficient to sustain an action for negligence: Huston v. Freemansburg Boro., 212 Pa. 548; Ewing v. Ry. Co., 147 Pa. 40 ; Linn v. Duquesne Borough, 204 Pa. 551. The jury in the present case was explicitly instructed to this effect and there is no complaint of the charge in that respect.
While it may be a little doubtful even on the plaintiff’s own testimony, whether she really received any direct physical injuries from the blast, apart from the fright, yet she testified positively that she was thrown on a chair by the force of the concussion, and this testimony gets some support from the fact that several window panes were broken and some particles of the glass struck her in the face. It was claimed bj^ defendant that her previous testimony was not in accord with this, but the question of credibility was for the jury.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.