Ford v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.

Citations

• 262 Pa. 514
• 105 A. 885
• 1919 Pa. LEXIS 714

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Mines and mining — General labor in mine — Contributory negligence — Case for jury.</p> <p>In an action against a coal mining company to recover damages for personal injuries to a general laborer in the mine, the question of the defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s contributory negligence arb for the jury where the evidence tends to show that plaintiff by direction of the foreman went into an unlighted and dark tunnel in the mine to procure some wire from a place described as a safety hole; that he was unfamiliar with the part of the mine, and was not warned as to any danger; that at the point in the tunnel ■where the accident occurred there were two parallel tracks on one of which cars were carried down by gravity, and on the other the empty cars were run into the mine; that as plaintiff was standing with one foot on the empty car track in front of the safety hole he became aware of some cars approaching him on that track only six or eight feet away; that he fell back on the other track and was struck by a draught of loaded ears which threw him against other loaded ears at rest on the same track; that the draught cars approached without signal or lights; and that plaintiff could not hear them because of the operations of a pump close by.</p> <p>In such a case the legal requirements in connection with surface railroad crossings do not apply.</p> <p>Negligence — Damages—Present worth rule — Pain and suffering.</p> <p>In negligence cases involving personal injuries, the rule which requires the court to instruct the jury to allow the present worth of future damages, does not apply in awarding compensation for pain, suffering and inconvenience.</p> <p>Negligence — Excessive verdict — New trial — Discretion of court.</p> <p>A judgment for plaintiff in an accident case will not be reversed because of the refusal of a new trial, where it is averred that the verdict of $11,686 was excessive, if no abuse of discretion is shown on the pa