Gold, F. v. Rosen, T.
135 A.3d 1039
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- In 2005 Frances Gold was rear-ended by Terri Rosen; parties stipulated Rosen was negligent and caused a neck sprain/strain.
- Gold alleged additional injuries from the 2005 accident; she had prior neck injury and had recently completed physical therapy before the 2005 collision.
- Gold sued in 2007; arbitration in 2013 awarded $25,000 to Gold, which defendants appealed; jury trial occurred in October 2014.
- At trial parties submitted expert reports (Rule 1311.1 election) rather than live expert testimony; experts disagreed on extent and causation of injuries.
- The jury found Rosen negligent and that the negligence factually caused the neck sprain/strain but awarded $0 damages for that injury.
- Gold moved for a new trial claiming the $0 verdict shocked the conscience; the trial court denied the motion and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a jury verdict of $0 for an undisputed compensable injury requires a new trial | Gold: Jury recognized injury (experts agreed injury occurred) so $0 verdict is against the weight of the evidence and shocks the conscience | Rosen: Jury could conclude injury was de minimis or due to preexisting condition; evidence supported no compensable damages | Held: No abuse of discretion; jury reasonably found injury insignificant and $0 award permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Lombardo v. DeLeon, 828 A.2d 372 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (where liability and injury were undisputed, $0 award for compensable soft-tissue injuries warranted a new trial on damages)
- Andrews v. Jackson, 800 A.2d 959 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (jurors may find an injury incidental or non-compensable despite causation)
- Davis v. Mullen, 773 A.2d 764 (Pa.) (verdict inadequacy warrants reversal only where injustice "stands forth like a beacon")
- Van Kirk v. O'Toole, 857 A.2d 183 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (not all pain warrants compensation; evaluate significance case-by-case)
- In re Estate of Smaling, 80 A.3d 485 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (appellate review of weight-of-the-evidence rulings is deferential; trial court discretion given "gravest consideration")