Wolf v. C. Schmidt & Sons Brewing Co.

Citations

• 236 Pa. 240
• 84 A. 778
• 1912 Pa. LEXIS 741

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Bicycle — Collision with moior truclc — Charge of court — Failure to charge on a particular point.</p> <p>1. In an action by a bicyclist to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a collision with defendant’s motor-truck, where the evidence is conflicting as to the negligence of the defendant and the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, and the court correctly instructs the jury as to the rights of the parties if they find one or the other'or both guilty of negligence, the court cannot be charged with error in failing to say that there could be no recovery if neither party was in fault, if it appears that no request was made to so charge, and the court did say that if the plaintiff got “into a position where the accident was practically unavoidable by anybody,” he could not recover.</p> <p>Negligence — Damages — Loss of future earnings.</p> <p>2. Where in an accident case future earnings are anticipated and capitalized, the plaintiff is entitled to their present value only. The standard is the present worth of the probable future earnings of which a plaintiff will be deprived, based on factors which apply to the individual case, such as his age, condition, station in life, occupation, health and surroundings.</p> <p>3. In a negligence case where the plaintiff claims damages for the loss of a leg, and his counsel in argument suggested that plaintiff’s expectancy of life was fifty years, aud that the measure of damages should be ascertained by multiplying his annual loss of wages by fifty, the court commits no error in calling attention to the fact that a loss computed on the basis claimed would amount to more than twice the cost of an annuity that would equal the annual loss of wages. Such an instruction was not the setting up of the cost of an annuity as a standard, but a proper warning against adopting a mistaken method of calculation urged by counsel.</p>