top of page

News

Jury Leaves Portions of the Verdict Sheet Blank - What is Remedy? (PA)

March 7, 2019

Share to:


In <em><a href="http://blog.wcmlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Mader-v.-Duquesne.pdf">Mader v. Duquesne</a></em>, a fifty-four-year-old masonry contractor was conducting chimney repair at a home, and was electrocuted when an aluminum extension ladder he was carrying made contact with underground electrical power lines. As a result, plaintiff was severely burned on his arms and feet, underwent multiple surgeries, and his feet were amputated.

Plaintiff filed a personal injury action against the owner of the power line alleging negligence in maintaining the electric lines too close to the ground. The jury returned a verdict where the power line was found 60% negligent and the plaintiff 40% negligent. The trial court instructed the jury that if liability was found, plaintiff was entitled to compensation for past medical expenses, past lost earnings, future lost earning capacity, past and future pain and suffering, embarrassment and humiliation, loss of ability to enjoy the pleasures of life and disfigurement. The jury awarded only past medical expenses and future medical expenses. The plaintiff then filed a motion requesting a new trial on the issue of damages. Defendant agreed that a new trial on past pain and suffering was appropriate but objected to a new trial on all damages. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion and the defendant appealed.

The Superior Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. First, the Court held that the trial court erred in ordering a new trial on the issue of past medical expenses because those damages were stipulated to by the parties. The Superior Court also held that that the trial court erred in granting a new trial on future medical expenses since that issue was fully developed and the jury determined its verdict regarding future medical expenses after fully evaluating the evidence presented. However, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to order a new trial on past wage loss and loss of future earning capacity stating that the jury’s verdict for zero damages was against the weight of the evidence.

Finally, the Court affirmed the trial court ordering a new trial on pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life’s pleasures and disfigurement.  Interestingly, the defendant's strategy on appeal was to concede that plaintiff was entitled to a new trial on past pain and suffering, based on the testimony proferred, but instead argued that plaintiff was <strong>not</strong> entitled to a new trial on present and future pain and suffering.  This was bold but well thought-out strategy by the defense, but the appellate Court sided with the plaintiff on this issue, and awarded a new trial on all pain and suffering claim.  Thanks to Melisa Buchowiec for her contribution to this post.  Please email <a href="mailto:BGibbons@wcmlaw.com">Brian Gibbons</a> with any questions.

&nbsp;

Headshot of Staff Member
Button
Button
Button
Button

Contact

bottom of page