Hockenberry v. New Castle Electric Co.
Citations
- 251 Pa. 394
- 96 A. 1046
- 1916 Pa. LEXIS 477
Syllabus
<p>Negligence — Electric companies — Lineman—Death—Proximate cause — Contributory negligence — Case for jury — Damages—failure to charge on present worth — Erroneous instructions.</p> <p>1. In an action of trespass for the death of plaintiff’s husband, a lineman in the employ of a telephone company, who while at work on a telephone pole came in contact with a defectively insulated wire of an electric company and fell to the ground and was found dead, where it appeared that the defective insulation of defendant’s wire had existed for a time sufficient to charge defendant with constructive notice thereof, it was for the jury to determine whether the negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of decedent’s death; it was not material that it did not appear whether the death was caused by the electric shock or by the fall induced by the shock.</p> <p>2. Where, in such case, it appeared that deceased had not worn rubber gloves or a safety belt, but where the only evidence to show that deceased’s hand had received the shock was the testimony of an expert, who stated that he had found a burn upon decedent’s hand, which might have been caused by a heavily charged electric wire, it was for the jury to determine whether the negligence of deceased in failing to wear gloves contributed to the accident, and whether his life could have been saved had he worn a safety belt.</p> <p>3. The omission of the court in a negligence case to instruct the jury to find the present worth of future earnings, even when not requested so to do, is material error. When such omission occurs, the charge is not simply inadequate, but positively misleading.</p> <p>4. Where in such case, the trial judge charged the jury that “the wife of deceased, if entitled to recover, would be entitled to such sum as would compensate her for the loss of support, maintenance, care, protection and association of her husband......what she would have received during the years that the two of them would have prob
Judges: Brown, Frazer, Izisker, Moschzisker, Mosci, Potter, Stewart
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.