Quinn v. Pittsburgh

Citations

• 243 Pa. 521
• 90 A. 353
• 1914 Pa. LEXIS 655

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Municipalities—Bridges—Evidence—Barmless error — Infant—Parent—Contributory negligence.</p> <p>1. In an action of trespass brought by a mother, and her infant daughter, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the infant in consequence of a fall caused by defects in the railing of a foot bridge against which the child had leaned, where it appeared that the bridge was within the city limits and connected two city streets; that it had been used by the public for more than twelve years and that it had been rebuilt by the city shortly after the accident, the admission of testimony that certain work upon and about the bridge had been done by workmen in white .uniforms, who were described by the witness as “white wings,” in order to show control of the bridge by the city was, not ground for reversal where there was other evidence to establish a prima facia case for the plaintiff and this evidence was not contradicted by the defendant.</p> <p>2. The court made no error in such case in refusing to instruct the jury that the mother was guilty of contributory negligence in permitting the child to cross the bridge, where it appeared that the child had been sent on an errand by the mother in the performance of which the accident happened; that the mother stated that though she had known that the floor of the bridge was in need of repair, she had observed nothing with respect to the railing and where there was nothing in the case to bring home to the knowledge of the mother the defect which caused the accident.</p> <p>Damages — Items of damage — Parent and child — Loss of companionship — Charge to fury. '</p> <p>3. The right to recover for loss of companionship is confined to cases where a husband sues for injuries to his wife; the law does not recognize loss of companionship as an element of damage in any other relation.</p>