Hollinger v. York Railways Co.

Citations

• 225 Pa. 419
• 74 A. 344
• 1909 Pa. LEXIS 676

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Damages—Stating to jury the amount claimed.</p> <p>1. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries it is reversible error for the court to state to the jury the amount which the plaintiff claims in his pleadings.</p> <p>Practice, C. P. — Verdict—Excessive verdict — Act of May 20, 1891, P. L. 101.</p> <p>2. The primary duty of correcting an excessive verdict rests with the trial court. The appellate court will not ordinarily exercise the authority conferred upon it by the Act of May 20, 1891, P. L. 101, to reverse a judgment on the ground that the verdict was unreasonably excessive. The trial court has the authority and is in possession of the facts which will warrant it in correcting such a verdict. While it should not interfere with the functions of the jury and undertake to determine facts which is exclusively the province of the jury, yet when it is apparent that the jury has returned a verdict excessive in amount and clearly beyond what the evidence warrants, the court should set aside or reduce the verdict. This is a duty as imperative as any other which rests upon a trial court, and there should be no hesitancy in performing it.</p> <p>Negligence — Damages—Release of damages — Minor—Evidence—Credibility of witness.</p> <p>3. A release of damages for personal injuries for a small consideration signed by a minor shortly after the injuries were sustained is invalid as an act of a minor, and is not admissible in evidence to affect the credibility of the minor as a witness in her own case.</p>