Polett, M. v. Public Communications, Inc.
80 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 15, 2017Background
- In 2008 Margo and Daniel Polett sued Public Communications, Inc., Zimmer, Inc., Zimmer USA, Inc., and Zimmer Holdings, Inc.; a 2011 jury awarded $26,000,000 to Margo and $1,000,000 to Daniel.
- The jury found Margo 30% contributorily negligent; the trial court reduced and added delay damages, entering judgment of $19,602,141.23 for Margo and $700,000 for Daniel.
- Appellants sought remittitur; the Superior Court previously concluded the jury verdicts were excessive and remanded for remittitur.
- On remand the trial court reduced Margo’s award by ~25% to $20,600,000 and Daniel’s by 10% to $900,000, then molded those amounts to reflect contributory negligence and delay damages.
- Defendants appealed the remitted amounts as still excessive and disproportionate given primarily non‑economic damages and argued the trial court failed to apply comparative verdicts and appropriate remittitur factors.
- The Superior Court affirmed, finding no gross abuse of discretion in the trial court’s remittitur and that the court properly considered remittitur factors and the jury‑accepted evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by remitting Margo Polett’s $26M verdict to $20.6M | Remittitur was appropriate and the remitted award is supported by evidence of severe, long‑term injuries | The remitted award remains grossly excessive given only non‑economic damages and trial court failed to consider comparative verdicts and mitigating evidence | Court affirmed: no gross abuse of discretion; remittitur within trial court's discretion after considering Kemp factors and evidence accepted by jury |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by remitting Daniel Polett’s $1M verdict to $900K | Remittitur to $900K is supported by same reasons supporting Margo’s remittitur | Remittitur was arbitrary and insufficiently explained (only 10% reduction) | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; reduction reasonable under deference to jury and trial court assessment |
Key Cases Cited
- Murray v. Philadelphia Asbestos Corp., 640 A.2d 446 (Pa. Super. 1994) (guidance on excessive/punitive verdicts and remittitur review)
- Hyrcza v. West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc., 978 A.2d 961 (Pa. Super. 2009) (instructions and principles for noneconomic damages)
- Haines v. Raven Arms, 640 A.2d 367 (Pa. 1994) (pain and suffering awards must be compensatory, reasonable, and supported by evidence)
- Kemp v. Philadelphia Transportation Company, 361 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 1976) (factors for remittitur analysis)
- Renna v. Schadt, 64 A.3d 658 (Pa. Super. 2013) (remittitur appropriate only when award is plainly excessive)
- Botek v. Mine Safety Appliance Corp., 611 A.2d 1174 (Pa. 1992) (appellate courts should not substitute their judgment for factfinder; standard of review for remittitur)
- Smalls v. Pittsburgh‑Corning Corp., 843 A.2d 410 (Pa. Super. 2004) (review must consider evidence accepted by the jury)
- Dubose v. Quinlan, 125 A.3d 1231 (Pa. Super. 2015) (verdict shocks sense of justice standard when jury influenced by prejudice or corruption)
- Neal v. Bavarian Motors, 882 A.2d 1022 (Pa. Super. 2005) (trial court may remit verdict to no less than highest amount any jury could properly award)