Zimmerman v. Weinroth

Citations

• 272 Pa. 537
• 116 A. 510
• 1922 Pa. LEXIS 864

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Damages—Evidence—Experts — Opinion — Disease result of injury — Loss of earning power.</p> <p>1. When expert testimony is relied on to show the connection between an alleged cause and a certain result, it is not enough for the doctors to say simply that the ailment in question might have resulted from the assigned cause, or that the one could have brought about the other; they must go further and. testify at least that, taking into consideration all the attending data, it is their professional opinion the result in question most probably came from the cause alleged.</p> <p>2. Where it is equally probable that the disease resulted from two or more causes, for only one of which defendant is responsible, there can be no recovery.</p> <p>3. The loss of earning power and its amount must appear by proper and satisfactory proof and not be left to conjecture.</p> <p>4. Where a widow has not worked for wages for many years, but resided with her adult children, and kept house for them, it is reversible error for the court, in an action to recover damages for personal injuries to her, to submit to the jury the question of her loss of earning power, where there is no proof as to the value of the services which she did or could perform.</p> <p>5. In such case, evidence that a daughter temporarily left her , own employment to care for the mother and do the housework, and that the latter promised to pay the daughter wages she thereby lost, while proper as showing the mother’s damages during that time, did not tend to establish her earning capacity, as the daughter’s general employment was entirely different.</p> <p>6. The mere fact that plaintiff was not a wage earner, prior to the accident, will not prevent her recovering for loss of earning power.</p>