Mirabel v. Morales
57 A.3d 144
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Jury verdict finds Appellants liable for Mirabal's injuries after a Philadelphia accident involving a bus and Comcast van.
- Pre-trial in limine barred statements about Comcast's wealth/size; no party objected and court granted.
- Closing arguments included racially charged remarks by Mirabal’s counsel and wealth-related remarks by Mirabal’s and Latin Express’s counsel, violating the pre-trial order.
- Trial court issued a curative instruction only for race, not for wealth/size statements; no mistrial granted.
- Jury allocated 75% fault to Schulgen/Comcast and 25% to Morales/Latin Express; damages awarded were $350,000.
- Post-trial, motion granted only to retry damages; appellate review challenges the denial of a new trial on liability and damages; court reverses and remands for a full new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether closing race-based remarks required a new trial on liability | Mirabal's counsel used race to inflame prejudice | Pre-trial curative instruction should suffice | New trial on liability warranted |
| Whether pre-trial wealth statements violated the order and mandated a new trial | Statements violated the in limine order and prejudiced outcome | Remedies less than new trial could be adequate | Remand for new trial on liability and damages; pre-trial violations support new trial |
| Whether the 'choice of ways' instruction was proper given the evidence | Doctrine misapplied; evidence insufficient | Doctrine applicable given safety choice | Instruction error; requires new trial on liability and damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Mittleman v. Bartikowsky, 283 Pa. 485 (Pa. 1925) (race-based closing remarks require strong curative measures or new trial)
- Baker v. Nat’l Mut. Casualty Ins. Co., 370 Pa. Super. 461 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1987) (wealth evidence may prejudice jury verdicts against defendant)
- Holden v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 169 Pa. 1 (Pa. 1897) (court may admonish counsel for improper remarks to protect trial integrity)
- Downing v. Shaffer, 371 A.2d 953 (Pa. Super. 1977) (choice of ways doctrine only in clearly proven dangerous/ safe alternatives)
- Oswald v. Stewart, 448 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 1982) (narrow application of the doctrine; must be obvious danger)
- Price v. Guy, 735 A.2d 668 (Pa. 1999) (jury instruction is reversible if likely misled by charge)
- Poust v. Hylton, 940 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2007) (illustrates when prejudicial comments require a mistrial option)