Graham v. Pennsylvania Co.

Citations

• 139 Pa. 149
• 21 A. 151
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 967

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. Tbe admissibility of tbe opinions of witnesses, expert and other, must always rest in clear necessity. In those matters where mere descriptive language is inadequate to convey to the jury the precise facts, or their bearing on the issue, a witness may be allowed to supplement his description by his opinion, to put the jury in position to determine the facts in issue.</p> <p>2. But, when the circumstances are such that they can be fully and accurately described to the jury, and their bearing on the issue estimated by persons without special knowledge or training, opinions of witnesses, expert or other, are inadmissible : Beatty v. Gilmore, 16 Pa. 463, explained; Pranklin Ins. Co. v. Gruver, 100 Pa. 266, and other eases, followed.</p> <p>3. Where the plaintiff, on alighting from a railroad train upon a narrow platform, walked obliquely towards its edge, fell over an offset upon a broader platform and was injured, it was error to permit witnesses, describing the construction of the platforms and their surroundings, to testify whether in their opinions the construction was dangerous or not.</p> <p>4. It was also error, in such case, to refuse to charge that “ if the jury believe the platform on which the plaintiff fell was reasonably safe and one which could be used, without danger, by a passenger using ordinary care,their verdict should be for the defendant;” on a finding of the facts suggested, the company was not chargeable with negligence.</p> <p>5. Where, notwithstanding an omission of the defendant to move for a nonsuit, or to ask for binding instructions to the jury, it is clear that the admitted facts fail to establish any negligence in the defendant, and that plaintiff, as matter ot law, must always fail to recover, a judgment for the plaintiff will be reversed without a new venire.</p>