Steinbrunner v. Pittsb. etc. Ry. Co.

Citations

• 146 Pa. 504
• 23 A. 239
• 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1255

Syllabus

<p>1. An erroneous statement of the evidence upon the pivotal fact in the case, in the charge to the jury, is a cause of reversal, even when inadvertently made and inconsistent with prior parts of the charge, as the influence which such statement may have had with the jury cannot be determined.</p> <p>2. In an action for negligence resulting in death, the deceased having been shown to have been a healthy strong man, and his age, occupation and earning power having been made to appear, it was competent to show the expectation of life of such a man according to the Carlisle tables of mortality.</p> <p>3. Being based upon general population, and not upon selected or insurable lives, the Carlisle tables are admissible in such a case, as some evidence competent to be considered by the jury in determining what was the actual expectation of life of the deceased: Shippen’s App., 80 Pa. 391, distinguished.</p> <p>' 4. The value of such tables, however, when applied to a particular case, will depend very much upon other matters, such as state of health, habits of life, social condition, etc.; and the attention of juries should be called pointedly to these qualifying circumstances.</p> <p>5. An instruction, in an action against a corporation for a negligent killing, to consider the questiou.of damages “ from a broad and sensible point of view, and liberal, because it is not a case to cut off corners too closely,” is unwise, to say the least, though perhaps not of itself requiring reversal.</p>