Amadou, K. v. Sarver, R.
Amadou, K. v. Sarver, R. No. 1683 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 7, 2017Background
- Appellants Kerim Amadou and minors Shamael and Shakib Rahamani appeal from a 2015 judgment after a jury trial in Allegheny County arising from a motor vehicle collision with Appellee Ronald Sarver.
- Sarver admitted liability but contested damages in the rear-end collision.
- Jury found Sarver caused injury to Amadou with damages of $1,400, and found Shamael’s injuries with no damages and Shakib’s injuries with no damages.
- Appellants challenged a curative instruction under 75 Pa.C.S. § 4581(e) and argued the damages award was against the weight of the evidence.
- The trial court denied post-trial motions; this Court quashed an interlocutory appeal; after judgment, Appellants filed another appeal.
- The Superior Court vacated Amadou’s damages award and remanded for a new damages trial, affirming in part as to other aspects and remanding for further proceedings consistent with the memorandum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court should have given a curative instruction under § 4581(e). | Amadou argues the jury was exposed to improper seatbelt evidence. | Sarver argues § 4581(e) prohibition does not require a curative instruction in this context. | No reversible error; no prejudice shown; curative instruction not required. |
| Whether the damages verdict as to Amadou was against the weight of the evidence. | Amadou’s lost wages were caused by pain, so pain and suffering should accompany the economic damages. | Davis/Majczyk framework allows affirming zero pain if not proven; here, damages matched medical evidence. | Damages order reversed for Amadou; remanded for a new damages trial on the amount of pain-and-suffering-related losses. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marsh v. Hanley, 856 A.2d 138 (Pa. Super. 2004) (new trial on damages when wage loss reflected pain and suffering)
- Majczyk v. Oesch, 789 A.2d 717 (Pa. Super. 2001) (jury may award zero for pain and suffering in some injuries)
- Burnhauser v. Bumberger, 745 A.2d 1256 (Pa. Super. 2000) (compensable injury; zero pain and suffering against the weight of the evidence)
- Davis v. Mullen, 773 A.2d 764 (Pa. 2001) (jury may award expenses but not pain where not linked to accident)
- Gaudio v. Ford Motor Co., 976 A.2d 524 (Pa. Super. 2009) (evidence of non-use of restraints prohibited in civil action)
- Spiewak v. Commonwealth, 617 A.2d 696 (Pa. 1992) (cannot use shield statute to preclude probative impeachment evidence)
- Gurley v. Janssen Pharm., Inc., 113 A.3d 283 (Pa. Super. 2015) (two-step abuse-of-discretion standard for new-trial decisions)