Kost v. Ashland Borough

Citations

• 236 Pa. 164
• 84 A. 691
• 1912 Pa. LEXIS 730

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Boroughs — Infant—Fall of pole — Evidence — Electric light company — ■Secondary liability of borough.</p> <p>1. In an action against a borough to recover damages for the death of a child caused by the fall of a pole in a street, where it appears that the pole had been standing in the street for many years, and had become decayed, but with little indication of decay on the surface of the pole, it is reversible error to refuse to permit the borough to show that the pole had been erected by an electric light company that had authority under its charter to erect poles in the borough streets.</p> <p>2. In such a case the fact that the pole was erected by a light company, does not relieve the borough from .the duties of supervision and inspection, but its duty is secondary, and the rule in relation thereto is less stringent than that which would apply if the pole had been unlawfully on the street, or had been erected by the borough, and was under its sole management. The duty of the borough in the care of its streets is not to seek for defects, but to observe them when they become observable in the exercise of reasonable supervision.</p> <p>Negligence — Infant — Damages—Excessive verdict.</p> <p>3. In an action to recover damages for the death of a little girl ten years old a verdict of $3,500 for plaintiff is excessive, where the total loss proved, including all expenses incurred, was $122.69, and the only other proof on the subject of loss was that she assisted an older sister in household work, and the care of younger children of the family. In such a case a recovery must be based on proofs, and without them, no verdict should be permitted to stand.</p>