Fessler v. Schuylkill Haven Gas & Water Co.

Citations

• 69 Pa. Super. 331
• 1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 391

Syllabus

<p>Waters — Diversion—Water company — Lower riparian owner— Punitive damages — Qualification of witnesses — Improper remarks of counsel.</p> <p>On an appeal from a judgment for plaintiff in an action against a water company to recover damages for the diversion of a stream, the appellate court will not consider assignments of error to portions of the charge which permitted the jury to allow punitive damages, if it appears that the verdict of the jury was less than half the amount which could have been awarded as compensatory damages under the evidence.</p> <p>In such a case where witnesses called by the plaintiff to testify as to land values, show that they are familiar with the situation of the property, and the buying, selling and holding values of property in the neighborhood they may give an opinion on the question of values, and their testimony is entitled to the consideration which the jury may deem it worthy.</p> <p>Where it appears in an action against a water company that the company unlawfully and without notice to plaintiff, and without exercising the right of eminent domain in a legal manner, diverged the waters of a stream, a judgment for the plaintiff will not be reversed because the trial court refused to withdraw a juror after counsel for plaintiff in addressing the jury had used this language: “There ought to be something done to put a stop to this kind of thing. Is that fair and right that the defendant company should take this water instead of taking it under the right of eminent domain, and then employ the ablest lawyers at this bar and the Philadelphia Bar to prevent the plaintiff from recovering what is due him? Should this kind of conduct go unwhipped of justice ?”</p>