Hubbard v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

Citations

• 263 Pa. 586
• 107 A. 319
• 1919 Pa. LEXIS 483

Syllabus

<p>Instructions to jury — Inadequacy — Failure to present requests for instructions — Appeal.</p> <p>1. A party is not in a position to complain of the inadequacy of the instructions to the jury where he fails to present requests for instructions, especially where the trial judge stated to counsel that if they would frame a point covering anything they desired him to say, he would answer it.</p> <p>Negligence — Instructions to jury — Damages for personal injury —Nervous disorders — Fright—Hysteria.</p> <p>2. An instruction to a jury in an action for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by defendant’s negligence, was to the effect that if the jury believe that the plaintiff “is suffering from some physical injury which resulted from the accident, then you should return a verdict in her favor for such a sum of money as you believe, paid to her tó-day, will compensate her for the financial loss she suffered by reason of the negligence of the defendant’s employees at the time and place to which I have already adverted.” To which the court added, when counsel suggested that the instruction carried with it the inference that if there was a physical injury, sh’e was entitled to all her loss: “You understand that any verdict you render in favor of the plaintiff in this ease must only be compensation for the physical injuries that have resulted by reason of this accident, together with compensation for such nervous disorders as are connected with and naturally result from the physical injury, but there can be no recovery by the plaintiff of any amount on account of fright or mere hysteria.” Held, that the instruction was entirely free from error whether standing alone or in connection with the other portions of the charge.</p>