Banohashim v. R.S. Enterprises, LLC
77 A.3d 14
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Banohashim sued RS Enterprises for negligence after a December 9, 2007 fall on wedges cut from concrete steps at 65 East Main St., North East, PA.
- Eck, a civil engineer, offered a defect/design-drift theory in trial; RS moved to exclude him but failed at trial.
- Banohashim testified she knew wedges existed, was familiar with the property, and avoided the center of the steps.
- The accident caused a broken left ankle requiring surgery and implants.
- Trial evidence included an in-limine ruling, an ambiguous verdict form, and contested jury instructions on comparative negligence and damages.
- The trial court limited the new-trial remedy to damages only, prompting post-trial motions and an appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was limiting the new trial to damages appropriate given liability issues? | Banohashim argues liability was not fairly determined. | RS Enterprises contends damages-only trial was proper. | Abuse of discretion; require new trial on both liability and damages. |
| Did the verdict slip and instructions fail to convey effects of equal apportionment of negligence? | Banohashim contends the jury was not properly instructed about consequences of 50/50 apportionment. | RS Enterprises maintains the trial court correctly limited relief to damages. | Liability not fairly determined; require new trial on liability and damages. |
| Should Eck's testimony have been excluded, given its relevance to ultimate issues? | Not explicitly stated as dispositive. | Attempt to preclude expert on design/foreseeability issues. | Remand implies new trial on all issues; prior rulings vacated accordingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Casselli v. Powlen, 937 A.2d 1137 (Pa. Super. 2007) (recovery of damages despite 50/50 liability split; need for damages consideration when equal fault is found)
- Nykiel v. Heyl, 838 A.2d 808 (Pa. Super. 2003) (jury apportions 50/50 but awards zero damages; trial court erred in not limiting new trial to damages)
- Fillmore v. Hill, 445 Pa. Super. 324, 665 A.2d 514 (Pa. Super. 1995) (equal fault with zero damages; appellate remand for damages-focused new trial)
- Bortner v. Gladfelter, 302 Pa. Super. 492, 448 A.2d 1386 (Pa. Super. 1982) (equal fault; damages issue addressed on remand)
- Gagliano v. Ditzler, 437 Pa. 230, 263 A.2d 319 (Pa. 1970) (limits on granting damages-only new trials when liability not free from doubt)