Hartman v. Pittsburgh Incline Plane Co.

Citations

• 159 Pa. 442
• 28 A. 145
• 1894 Pa. LEXIS 862

Syllabus

<p>Railroads — Incline planes — Consequential damages — Eminent domain — • Streets — Evidence—Obstruction to access.</p> <p>Where an incline plane is built across a street, and is supported upon piers built upon lots on opposite sides of the street, owned by the company in fee, and the structure does not rest upon or overhang any other person’s land either within or outside the lines of the street, evidence that access to the properly of a neighboring landowner is obstructed, is inadmissible in an action by the landowner for damages.</p> <p>Damages — Evidence—Jury—Incline planes.</p> <p>Juries are allowed to act upon probable and inferential, as well as direct and* positive proof. And when, from the nature of the case, the amount of the damages cannot be ascertained with certainty, there can be no objection to placing before the jury all the facts and circumstances of the case having a tendency to show damages and their probable amount, so as to enable them to make the most intelligible and probable estimate that the nature of the case will permit.</p> <p>In an action against an incline plane company there was evidence that defendant company constructed its incline against the side of plaintiff’s dwelling house, and that part of the abutment supporting the incline was so constructed that water was discharged against the brick wall of the house, and so saturated it that the plaster and paper on the inside were injured, and partially destroyed, and the room became mouldy, and untenantable. The witnesses did not state, in dollars and cents, the amount of damages resulting, but they fully described the nature, character and extent of the injury. Held, that the case was for the jury.</p> <p>' The ordinary intelligence and experience of jurors is sufficient to enable them to say with reasonable accuracy how much it would cost to repair damages such as were described by the witnesses in this ease. But, if it were otherwise, the plaintiffs were entitled under the evidence t