283 A.3d 794
Pa.2022Background
- In 2016 James Cowher collapsed while running and died; autopsy showed acute myocardial infarction. Plaintiff (administrator/widow) sued under the Wrongful Death Act and the Survival Act.
- Defense moved in limine to exclude plaintiff’s cardiology expert (Dr. Hayek) testimony that decedent experienced conscious pain and suffering; motion was denied and the expert testified at trial.
- The trial court instructed the jury that survival damages comprise four components (pain and suffering; loss of life’s pleasures; past and future lost earnings) but provided a single lump-sum line for Survival Act damages on the verdict slip.
- Jury awarded $2,457,000 (wrongful death) and $3,833,000 (survival). Defendants did not request itemization or special interrogatories and did not seek clarification before jury discharge.
- The Superior Court ordered a new trial limited to survival damages, concluding the expert pain testimony was inadmissible and prejudicial. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed only whether defendants waived their right to a new trial under the general verdict rule.
- The Supreme Court held defendants waived a new trial under the general verdict rule because they (1) knew the evidentiary issue pretrial, (2) proposed and accepted a lump-sum verdict form, (3) failed to request special interrogatories, and (4) the survival award was supportable on other valid evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants waived a new trial on survival damages by failing to request special interrogatories/itemization of survival components | Cowher: general verdict rule bars new trial when a verdict rests on valid and invalid grounds and defendant failed to obtain special interrogatories | Kodali: rule inapplicable to evidentiary error in damages; they preserved error and were prejudiced by expert testimony | Held: Waiver. Defendants knew issue, sought/accepted lump-sum verdict, never requested itemization; general verdict rule bars new trial |
| Whether admission of Dr. Hayek’s opinion on pain and suffering required a new trial as prejudicial | Cowher: absence of itemization prevents defendants from proving prejudice; general verdict rule controls | Kodali: testimony was prejudicial (survival award exceeded economic damages by ~$1.13M); juries give weight to experts | Held: Court did not resolve harmlessness; even if prejudicial, remedy waived because of failure to secure special interrogatories |
| Whether survival damages must be itemized (or lump-sum verdicts are permissible) | Cowher: itemization is needed to test prejudice and general verdict rule applies | Kodali: longstanding practice and jury instructions support lump-sum survival/wrongful-death awards | Held: Court: precedents do not forbid itemization but lump-sum awards are permissible; absence of itemization here led to waiver under the general verdict rule |
| Whether application of the general verdict rule should be prospective only | Cowher: N/A (invokes existing rule) | Kodali: retroactive application is unfair; should be prospective to allow adjustment | Held: Applied retroactively; Halper and Shiflett predated trial, so defendants had notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Halper v. Jewish Family & Children's Serv., 963 A.2d 1282 (Pa. 2009) (announces and explains the general verdict rule requiring special interrogatories to preserve challenges to a verdict resting on multiple theories)
- Shiflett v. Lehigh Valley Health Network, Inc., 217 A.3d 225 (Pa. 2019) (applies and reiterates Halper’s general verdict rule and waiver consequences)
- Birth Center v. St. Paul Cos., Inc., 727 A.2d 1144 (Pa. Super. 1999) (declines to disturb jury award where party failed to request structured verdict slip; absence of special interrogatories hindered review)
- Krock v. Chroust, 478 A.2d 1376 (Pa. Super. 1984) (defendant waived challenge to jury’s allocation by failing to request special findings; cannot infer specific allocations from a general verdict)
- Ferne v. Chadderton, 69 A.2d 104 (Pa. 1949) (discusses requirement that wrongful-death awards be a lump sum distributable under statute; not dispositive for survival-itemization issue)
- Kiser v. Schulte, 648 A.2d 1 (Pa. 1994) (jury may accept or reject expert opinion, but verdict must reasonably resemble proven damages)