Call v. Hallam Construction Co.

Citations

• 238 Pa. 110
• 85 A. 1126
• 1913 Pa. LEXIS 932

Syllabus

<p>Appeals — Assignment of errors — Technical assignments — Damages — Negligence.</p> <p>1. Assignments of error which are merely technical and lacking in substantial merit when viewed in light of the whole record, will not be considered sufficient ground for reversal by an appellate court.</p> <p>2. On an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment on a verdict for defendant in a negligence case, where the jury has found as a fact that appellant was not entitled to recover any damages whatever, an assignment of error relating to the measure of damages is not in itself a ground for reversal.</p> <p>3. In an action by a woman against a contracting company to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by falling into an unguarded excavation made by defendant in a private alley, there was evidence that defendant had a contract with a borough for improving a street. Plaintiff claimed that this covered the excavation in the alley. Defendant claimed that the work was apart from its contract, had been done by one of its employees without authority from it, and at the instance of property owners, and that the work in the alley when the excavation had been completed had been turned over to plaintiff’s son, one of the property owners. The evidence in these matters was conflicting. Held, that the question as to who was responsible for the unguarded condition of the excavation was for the jury.</p> <p>4. In such a case the ordinance under which defendant’s contract was made, the contract itself, and evidence in relation to the borough’s duty to the alley, if any, were all admissible to show what the situation of the parties was in respect to the work done.</p> <p>Negligence — Contributory negligence — Charge.</p> <p>5. A trial judge cannot be convicted of error in telling the jury that it must “appear that plaintiff was herself free from contributory negligence” where he follows this by saying “if it should appear from the evidence that plaintiff was guilty of contributory neglige