Leonard v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

Citations

• 259 Pa. 51
• 102 A. 279
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 512

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Railroads —• Ejection of passenger at dangerous place — Damages—Compensatory and exemplary damages ■ — Pleadings — Statement of claim — Amendment—Departure—Measure of damages — Present worth — Instructions—Failure to request more specific instructions.</p> <p>1. In an action of tort, damages necessarily following as a natural and probable result of the injury may be proved without special averment as defendant will be presumed to be aware of such consequences of his conduct, and hence cannot plead surprise when proof of such injury is made. Damages of a special nature and not the usual consequences of the wrong complained of, however, must be specially averred that defendant may be informed of the claim and given an opportunity to prepare his defense; but where the action is for injuries to the person the jury may consider, without special averment, pain and suffering, expense incurred for medical treatment and loss of time caused by inability to work at the usual occupation of the injured person, inasmuch as these are the natural and usual results of an injury.</p> <p>2. In an action to recover damages for death of plaintiff’s husband due to the alleged negligence of the employees of defendant railroad company in ejecting deceased from its car at a dangerous place, in consequence of which he was killed by a passing train, defendant complained of the admission in evidence of matters tending to show loss of earnings and profits of deceased as a farmer as a basis for compensatory damages, where plaintiff’s statement claimed exemplary and punitive damages only. The statement first contained an averment that plaintiff claimed damages “in the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) and in addition to the above sum claims punitive damages from said defendant company, upon a cause of action whereof the following is a statement.” Succeeding paragraphs set forth the manner in which deceased met his death, and that his loss of life was due to defendant’s