Crumley v. Pennsylvania Railroad

Citations

• 272 Pa. 226
• 116 A. 152
• 1922 Pa. LEXIS 807

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Railroads—Master and servant — Safety appliance —Defect—Federal Act of March 21, 1898 — Coupling cars — Contributory negligence — Case for jury — Verdict—Damages—Excessive verdict.</p> <p>1. In an action by a brakeman against his employer for personal injuries, the ease is for the jury, where it appears that plaintiff, while engaged in interstate commerce, was injured by the failure of a coupling lever to work, and the evidence tends to show that the coupling pin was bent, and that the conductor in charge of the train, after the accident, experienced difficulty in working the device, and was obliged forcibly to strike the lever a number of times before it would operate.</p> <p>2. Under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act, contributory negligence of plaintiff is no defense, if a defect in a coupler caused or contributed to his injury.</p> <p>3. A verdict of $8,120, in an accident case, will not be held excessive if it appears that plaintiff’s injury was a crushed foot, resulting in a permanent impairment, and causing difficulty in walking.</p> <p>Practice, O. P. — Charge — Judge expressing opinion — Jury cautioned.</p> <p>4. A judgment on a verdict will not be reversed because the trial judge expressed an opinion that plaintiff would not be able to earn as high a compensation after the accident as before, where the judge subsequently instructs the jury they are not to be influenced by any of his words but to take their own view of matters of fact.</p> <p>Appeals — Statement of question involved — Excessive verdict.</p> <p>5. An objection that a verdict is excessive is not properly before the appellate court where it is not included in the statement of questions involved.</p>