Gillingham v. Consol Energy, Inc.
51 A.3d 841
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Consol Energy appeals consolidated personal injury actions by the Gillinghams and Deckers arising from a June 12, 2007 stair collapse at Consol’s South Park facility. The jury awarded four verdicts: Gillingham and Gillingham (collectively), Decker and Decker, with substantial noneconomic and economic damages; Consol sought remittitur or a new trial and challenged various evidentiary, procedural, and release-related issues. The court denied post-trial relief and affirmed the verdicts.
- The stairwell collapsed due to corrosion and rust on exterior bolts and internal bolts/backing plate; appellees’ expert evidence linked corrosion and improper maintenance to Consol’s liability to invitees (employees of an independent contractor), not mere speculative rework. The record included expert testimony, site inspection data, and photographs.
- Gillingham and Decker were Consol’s invitees/workers performing services for Consol; the duty owed was heightened to protect invitees from known and discoverable dangers.
- Mr. Gillingham signed a release while performing work at Consol through Technical Solutions; the trial court submitted the release’s validity to the jury under a contract-of-adhesion analysis, and the jury ruled the release valid.
- The court addressed damages, including past and future medical expenses, lost earnings and earning capacity, pain and suffering, and loss of consortium, upholding substantial awards and rejecting Consol’s requests for remittitur or new trials on damages.
- The court applied Pa.R.C.P. 223.3 to instruct the jury on noneconomic damages and rejected Carpinet v. Mitchell as controlling on verdict form.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the damages verdict was exorbitant requiring remittitur or a new trial | Consol argues the damages are excessive and not supported | Appellees contend damages reflect the injuries and evidence | No; damages supported; no remittitur or new trial warranted |
| Whether the testimony of Decker’s employer/economic expert was speculative and should have been excluded | Testimony relied on speculation about future earnings | Testimony based on productivity factors and evidence; admissible | Not error; testimony properly grounded in evidence and productivity analysis |
| Whether the testimony on Gillingham’s lost wages and earning capacity was improperly admitted | Evidence of wage loss and projected earnings should be excluded as speculative | Evidence supported by past earnings and plausible future opportunities | Admissible; supported by evidence and credibility determinations |
| Whether the verdict form violated procedural rules by including multiple line items for noneconomic damages | Line items allowed noneconomic categories and violated Carpinet | Rule 223.3 permits itemized noneconomic damages | Proper under Pa.R.C.P. 223.3; not grounds for reversal |
| Whether Consol is entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict due to the release or statutory employer immunity | Release and statutory immunity bars claims | Release was contractually adhesive but question for jury; statutory employer defense not established | JNOV denied; release submitted to jury; Patton/Helpin logic applied; statutory immunity not controlling |
Key Cases Cited
- Portside Investors, L.P. v. Northern Insurance Co. of New York, 41 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard for reviewing NOV rulings and damages)
- Helpin v. Trustees of University of Pennsylvania, 969 A.2d 601 (Pa. Super. 2009) (expert testimony foundation and productivity factors for lost earnings)
- Patton v. Worthington Associates, Inc., 43 A.3d 479 (Pa. Super. 2012) (testing for whether a contractor is a statutory employee under §52)
- Hyrcza v. West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc., 978 A.2d 961 (Pa. Super. 2009) (guidance on assessing noneconomic damages and remittitur factors)
- Smalls v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corp., 843 A.2d 410 (Pa. Super. 2004) (factors for evaluating reasonableness of noneconomic damages)
- Carpinet v. Mitchell, 853 A.2d 366 (Pa. Super. 2004) (former rule on line-item damages; superseded by Rule 223.3)
- Leibowüz v. H.A. Winston Co., — (—) (cited for adhesion and compelled release analysis (contextual reference))