Mader, S. v. Duquesne Light, 199 A.3d 1258

Plaintiff Steven Mader, a masonry contractor, contacted a 13,000-volt power line with a 16-foot aluminum ladder in 2012, suffered severe burns and bilateral transmetatarsal amputations, multiple surgeries, and long-term impairment.
Mader sued Duquesne Light Company alleging negligence for locating the line too low; jury found Duquesne 60% liable, Mader 40% negligent, and awarded $500,000 in compensatory damages (itemized only for past and future medical expenses by stipulation).
The parties stipulated past medical expenses of $444,525.56; jury also awarded $55,474.44 for future medical expenses and $0 for lost earnings, future earning capacity, pain and suffering, disfigurement, and related non-economic damages.
Mader moved for a new trial limited to damages; trial court granted a new trial as to all damage categories (past and future medical expenses, past lost earnings, future earning capacity, past/present/future pain and suffering, embarrassment/humiliation, loss of enjoyment, and disfigurement).
Duquesne appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a new trial on categories where the jury’s verdict was supported by stipulation or credible conflicting evidence.
The Superior Court reversed the grant of a new trial for past and future medical expenses and affirmed the grant as to past lost earnings, future lost earning capacity, and pain/suffering-related damages; remanded for a limited new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Past medical expenses	Mader sought new trial on damages generally; trial court ordered new trial on past medicals too	Duquesne: award equals parties’ stipulation and court instruction; no basis for new trial	Reversed — no new trial (jury followed stipulation and instruction)
2) Future medical expenses	Mader argued award flawed and life‑care projections may change pending a new trial	Duquesne: award matches defendant experts and is supported by evidence	Reversed — no new trial (verdict supported by expert evidence)
3) Past lost earnings & future earning capacity	Mader argued record shows wage/earning‑capacity loss tied to injuries; zero award shocks conscience	Duquesne: Mader mitigated poorly, ran business during recovery, no proof of continued wage loss	Affirmed — new trial on lost earnings and future capacity (zero award unsupported)
4) Past/present/future pain, embarrassment, loss of enjoyment, disfigurement	Mader sought new trial on all non‑economic damages	Duquesne conceded Mader entitled to new trial for past pain but argued no entitlement for present/future pain given healing and activity	Affirmed — new trial on past/present/future non‑economic damages (record shows chronic, permanent effects)

Harman ex rel. Harman v. Borah, 756 A.2d 1116 (Pa. 2000) (discussing trial court discretion to grant new trial)
Dornon v. McCarthy, 195 A.2d 520 (Pa. 1963) (new trial as an instrument of justice)
Kiser v. Schulte, 648 A.2d 1 (Pa. 1994) (new trial standard — verdict must not shock conscience)
Carroll v. Avallone, 939 A.2d 872 (Pa. 2007) (explaining standard for granting a new trial)
Burrell v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 265 A.2d 516 (Pa. 1970) (verdict supported by evidence will be upheld)
Kershner v. Prudential Ins. Co., 554 A.2d 964 (Pa. Super. 1989) (stipulations are binding on court and parties)
Burnhauser v. Bumberger, 745 A.2d 1256 (Pa. Super. 2000) (zero damages against weight of undisputed medical evidence)
Davis v. Mullen, 773 A.2d 764 (Pa. 2001) (upholding medical-expense awards without pain‑and‑suffering where jury lacked basis to attribute pain to accident)
McNeil v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 680 A.2d 1145 (Pa. 1996) (where errors are discrete, new trial should be limited to those issues)