Clark v. Butler Junction Coal Co.

Citations

• 259 Pa. 262
• 102 A. 952
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 403

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Mines and mining — Damages. —Measure of damages — Evidence—Character of treatment for injuries — Cross-examination of plaintiff.</p> <p>1. 'In an action for personal injuries, where it appears that, at the time of the accident, plaintiff was engaged in an occupation yielding him a low wage, it is nevertheless competent for him to prove that he is skilled at other occupations paying a highér wage, especially where it appears that his inability to pursue a more profitable occupation at the .time of the injury was due to a temporary condition in the financial and industrial world.</p> <p>2. In such case, however, it was error td permit the plaintiff to express a guess as to what wages he could earn at the more profitable occupation, in the absence of evidence as to the general wage scale for such labor or that the witness was distinguished by superior capacity over others in his class of employment. '</p> <p>3. Where in an action for personal injuries the plaintiff testifies as to the extent and character of iris injuries and the pain and suffering he endured, the defendant is entitled to cross-examine him as to what he did or failed to-do in order to obtain relief and improvement, and it is error for the court to refuse to allow plaintiff to be cross-examined with respect to the medical and surgical treatment he received, if any, immediately following the injury.</p> <p>4. Where in an action against a coal mining company the negligence charged was in allowing an uncovered hole to be in the path of an employee whose daily task was to push loaded cars over the hole, it was no part of the plaintiff’s case to show thát the maintenance of such hole was exceptional, and out of the-usual custom of the operation of coal .mines, and an objection to the ádmission of such evidence, should have been sustained.</p>