Gunzenhauser v. Prussian National Insurance

Citations

• 241 Pa. 346
• 88 A. 495
• 1913 Pa. LEXIS 788

Syllabus

<p>Insurance — Fire Insurance — Collapse of building — Evidence— Charge of court.</p> <p>1. In an action upon a policy of fire insurance, providing “if a building or any part thereof fall, except as the result of fire, all insurance by this policy on such building or its contents shall immediately cease,” the case was necessarily for the jury, where the evidence was conflicting as to whether the fall of the floors and wall caused the fire, or the fire caused the floors and wall to fafi.</p> <p>2. In such case it was not error for the court to exclude testimony offered by the defendant to show that on a number of occasions, several months prior to the fire, the plaintiff had overloaded the third floor of the building, where the offer was accompanied by an admission by defendant’s counsel that he did not intend to prove that the overloading had any visible effect on the wall.</p> <p>3. Such a ease will not be reversed on the ground that the court below laid too much stress on the testimony of the plaintiff, and too little on the testimony of the defendant, where the court expressly told the jury that he did not pretend to state the testimony of the witnesses with any degree of fullness, and did not deem it necessary, as counsel for both parties had done so in their arguments, and especially where the court had affirmed all of the defendant’s points except the one asking for binding instructions, and concluded his charge by directing the jury to take up and consider the testimony of all the witnesses, and where a consideration of the charge did not indicate that it was inadequate or unfair.</p>