Frysinger v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

Citations

• 249 Pa. 555
• 95 A. 257
• 1915 Pa. LEXIS 764

Syllabus

<p>Negligence—Street railways—Evidence — Medical testimony — Weight—Damages—Items of damage—Loss of earning power—Erroneous charge.</p> <p>1. Where in an action for personal injuries two physicians stated that plaintiff was suffering from neuritis, as a result of her injuries, one of whom stated that it was not likely that she would ever he entirely cured, hut five physicians, including plaintiff’s regular medical attendant testified that she did not have neuritis and was not permanently injured, a statement of the trial judge in his charge to the jury that “as in eases of this kind a great deal of medical testimony has been produced, and as usual about equally divided,” was not only inaccurate but tended to minimize the force of the medical testimony, and may have led the jury to disregard it, and was ground for reversal.</p> <p>2. Where in such case it appeared that two or three years previous to the accident plaintiff’s occupation was that of professional pianist hut that she had apparently abandoned such occupation, reversible error was committed in permitting the jury to take into consideration in their estimate of the damages, plaintiff’s alleged loss of earning power, based on her earnings at the time when she was actually engaged as a professional musician, in the absence of evidence that plaintiff had intended to resume her profession, or that any such intention was thwarted as a result of the accident and in the absence of medical testimony to show that plaintiff’s earning power was lessened by the accident.</p>