Legal Opinion

O'Brien v. Philadelphia

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 24, 1906No. Appeal, No. 372PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 372, Jan. T., 1905, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., June Term, 1904, No. 5,239, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Mattie O’Brien by her mother and next friend, Louisa O’Brien, and Louisa O’Brien v. City of Philadelphia. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Audenried, J. At the trial it appeared that the plaintiff, Mattie O’Brien, was injured on the evening of June 18, 1904, by falling into a hole in the street on the north side of Vine street east of Nineteenth street in the city of Philadelphia. The evidence showed that her father,…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Mitchell,

The right of action of a father for injury to a child was based on his duty of support and his consequent right to the services of the child. The common law which paid no heed to merely sentimental considerations or matters of feeling put the action on the basis of master and servant. Even the most serious of all, the seduction of a daughter, was redressed as an injury to the father as master, per quod servitium amisit.

The mother being under no obligation to support had no corresponding right to service.

This was the state of the law when the Act of June…

2Cases cited1 opinion

Kelly v. Pittsburg & Birmingham Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903

3Cited by5 opinions

Windle v. DavisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
Mawhinney v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1965
Crowley v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
American Steel & Wire Co. v. TynanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1911
Mawhinney v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1965