Keats v. Gas Co.

Citations

• 29 Pa. Super. 480
• 1905 Pa. Super. LEXIS 362

Syllabus

<p>Waters — Damages—Evidence.</p> <p>In an action to recover damages for injuries to property caused by the damming up of a stream, where the plaintiff describes the condition of the property immediately after the injury, a witness for the plaintiff may be permitted to testify as to the costs of the repairs necessary to restore the property to its former condition, although the estimate was made two years after the flood. SucH testimony although incompetent taken by itself, becomes competent when taken in connection with the testimony of the plaintiff.</p> <p>In such a case where it appeared that the injuries were caused during an extraordinary flood by the accumulation of debris against defendant’s gas pipe which crossed the stream beneath a bridge, the defendant may show that during extraordinary floods prior to the placing of the gas pipe across the stream, the banks overflowed and injured plaintiff’s property.</p> <p>In a doubtful case, it is better to admit testimony offered that may be competent and-relevant from any point of view, and determine later whether or not the testimony meets the requirements of the offer. This is particularly true when offers have been amended a number of times, in order to meet objections raised by counsel or by the court in ruling them out.</p> <p>In an action to recover damages for injuries to property by reason of a flood, it is proper to admit testimony as to the general character of the flood, as to the amount of rainfall and snow, and the condition of the temperature at the time of the flood.</p> <p>Waters — Damages—Measure of damages — Charge of the court.</p> <p>In an action to recover damages for injuries caused by flooding the banks of a stream, the court refused the following point: “The measure of damages to plaintiff’s premises, the injury not being shown .to be permanent, is the cost of restoring it to its former condition, together with compensation for the loss of its use.” All that the court said in its general cha