222 A.3d 1173
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- On August 29, 2014, Farese's convertible was rear-ended by a Venturi work van driven by Robinson; parties stipulated to defendants' negligence and that Farese was not comparatively negligent, so the jury trial was limited to damages.
- Farese claimed significant neck, back, and head injuries (including C6-7 disc herniation and L4-5 annular tear), treated by multiple specialists; MRIs and several medical experts were presented.
- Appellants moved to exclude cumulative expert testimony (Dr. Shah) but the court allowed neuroradiologist Dr. Shaer to testify; the defense ultimately rested without calling its own announced expert, Dr. Harris.
- During opening and closing, plaintiff's counsel made strongly worded, character‑attacking remarks (including implications about defendants’ valuation of human life and litigation costs); the court repeatedly sustained objections, admonished counsel, offered and gave curative instructions, and invited defense to draft a curative charge (which defense did not provide).
- Jury awarded $2,579,000 (including $900,000 future medical, $1,248,000 non‑economic, $416,000 consortium); trial court denied motions for new trial/remittitur; defendants appealed raising four principal challenges to the damages verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Farese) | Defendant's Argument (Robinson/Venturi) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether inflammatory opening/closing remarks required a new trial | Remarks were proper advocacy; court cured any prejudice with immediate admonitions, pre‑summation warning, and offers to craft curative instructions; defendants waived some objections by not pressing for mistrial/curative language | Remarks injected punitive considerations and improperly appealed to passion/prejudice, warranting mistrial or new trial | Affirmed: no abuse. Court promptly cured remarks, defendants waived further relief by failing to press for mistrial or provide curative instruction, and jury was instructed to avoid bias. |
| 2) Whether admission of multiple medical experts was unfairly cumulative | Expert testimony (notably neuroradiologist Shaer) was noncumulative because of specialized imaging expertise; the court excluded one potentially duplicative witness and controlled scope | Allowing multiple physicians to opine on same MRI was cumulative and prejudicial under Pa. R.E. 403 | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; Shaer’s neuroradiology specialization differentiated his testimony. |
| 3) Whether future medical awards must be reduced under MVFRL §1797 cost‑containment | §1797 does not apply to speculative future medical expenses payable in the future; reduction would risk denying recovery now and is inconsistent with precedent and persuasive federal decisions | Future medical awards should be molded to 110% of Medicare/usual & customary as required by §1797 | Affirmed: §1797 does not apply to future medical expense awards; trial court did not err denying reduction. |
| 4) Whether the verdict (including consortium award) was excessive or the product of passion/prejudice | Damages supported by Pa.R.C.P. 223.3 factors and abundant evidence on severity, permanency, treatment, pain, pre‑injury health, and consortium; jury has wide discretion | Verdict is shockingly excessive and resulted from passion, prejudice, and improper argument | Affirmed: award not grossly excessive or shocking; supported by evidence and proper jury instructions; consortium award within jury discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- ACE American Insurance Co. v. Underwriters at Lloyds and Cos., 939 A.2d 935 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review for denial of new trial/abuse of discretion).
- Young v. Washington Hospital, 761 A.2d 559 (Pa. Super. 2000) (trial judge must take affirmative steps to cure improper remarks).
- Commonwealth v. Cash, 137 A.3d 1262 (Pa. 2016) (jurors presumed to follow court instructions).
- McMillen v. 84 Lumber, Inc., 649 A.2d 932 (Pa. 1994) (failure to move for mistrial/new trial waives appellate relief).
- Nobles v. Staples, Inc., 150 A.3d 110 (Pa. Super. 2016) (admission of expert testimony reviewed for abuse of discretion).
- Rettger v. UPMC Shadyside, 991 A.2d 915 (Pa. Super. 2010) (court controls scope of expert examination; Pa. R.E. 403/611 authority).
- Pittsburgh Neurosurgery Assocs. v. Danner, 733 A.2d 1279 (Pa. Super. 1999) (discusses admissibility of unpaid medical bills and cost‑containment context).
- Tindall v. Friedman, 970 A.2d 1159 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard on excessiveness and consortium damages).
- Mader v. Duquesne Light Co., 199 A.3d 1258 (Pa. Super. 2018) (jury’s fact‑finding role on future medical expenses; limits on trial court altering jury awards).
- Neal v. Bavarian Motors, Inc., 882 A.2d 1022 (Pa. Super. 2005) (appellate court will not alter award if record supports it).