Everson v. Rollinson

Citations

• 5 Sadler 49
• 8 A. 194
• 1887 Pa. LEXIS 539

Syllabus

<p>A master is bound to furnish his servants proper tools, machinery, structures, etc.; and if he does not, he is liable in damages for injuries resulting to the servants from his negligence.</p> <p>Where the fall of a bridge on which a servant is employed to dump coal ears is caused by decay of the timbers, it is, in an action by the servant against the master to recover damages for injuries sustained, for the jury to determine whether the bridge was properly built, whether the defendant employed competent men to inspect it, and whether the defendant had no notice of its dangerous condition; and if the jury do not so, find, the plaintiff is entitled to recover.</p> <p>Where there is evidence of permanent injury, mortality tables are admissible as a basis for the calculation of the plaintiff’s expectation of life, and to assist the jury in fixing the damages.</p> <p>Note. — Eor the duty to furnish safe appliances, see note to Drew v. Gay-lord Coal Co. 2 Sad. Rep. 340.</p> <p>Mortality tables are admissible where injuries are permanent (MeCue v. Knoxville, 146 Pa. 580, 23 Atl. 439; Kraut v. Frankford & S. P. City Pass. R. Co. 160 Pa. 327, 28 Atl. 783) ; but not annuity tables (Kerrigan v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 194 Pa. 98, 44 Atl. 1069) ; nor life insurance rate tables, it not appearing upon what they are based (McKenna v. Citizens’ Natural Gas Co.- 198 Pa. 31, 47 Atl. 990). But mortality tables are based upon individuals in average condition, and the health and habits of the plaintiff must be taken into consideration in connection with them. Kerrigan v. Pennsyinia R. Go. 194 Pa. 98, 4.4 Atl. 1069; Rummele v. Allegheny Heating Co. 2 Monaghan (Pa.) 98, 16 Atl. 78; Bunting v. Hogsett, 139 Pa. 363, 12 L. R. A. 268, 23 Am. St. Rep. 192, 21 Atl. 31, 33, 34. And the court should instruct the jury to take such facts into consideration. Campbell v. York, 172 Pa. 205, 33 Atl. 879.</p>