Baker v. Pennsylvania Co.

Citations

• 142 Pa. 503
• 21 A. 979
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 767

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. An instruction, in an action for personal injuries, that if the injury was the remote cause of the injured person’s last sicliness and death, a recovery might be had for the pain suffered in that sickness, is not error, where it appears from the context that “ remote ” was not used in its legal sense, and that the jury could not have been misled by it.</p> <p>(a) The court charged: “It is of course difficult to give a money value to pain and suffering. No person would voluntarily endure such pain and suffering as it is proven Mrs. Baker endured, for any amount of money. But it is the duty of the jury, if they find for the plaintiff, to fix some sum which would be a compensation for this pain and suffering: ”</p> <p>2. The instruction was error; its effect was to suggest the price in money sufficient to induce a person to undergo voluntarily the pain and suffering complained of, as a measure of the compensation for having, been subjected to it. Such a standard is inapplicable in actions for a personal injury, not wantonly inflicted.</p> <p>3. The true rule is, that, in addition to loss of time and expenses actually incurred, the jury may consider also the nature of the injury, and the pain and inconvenience resulting from it, and make such allowance therefor as, in view of all the attending circumstances, may seem to be just and reasonable: Per Mr. Justice Williams.</p>