Stapas, J. v. Giant Eagle, Inc.
153 A.3d 353
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- At ~1:30 a.m. on July 18, 2007, John Stapas (then 17) was shot four times in the parking lot of a GetGo convenience store after a verbal/physical altercation with another patron, Brandon McCallister.
- Stapas had entered the store intending to purchase items, spoke briefly with clerks, followed McCallister outside during an escalating dispute, and was shot; he missed six weeks of work and has ongoing pain and scarring.
- Stapas sued Giant Eagle (GetGo) for negligence; a jury returned a verdict apportioning fault 73% to Giant Eagle and 27% to Stapas and awarded $2,086,000 in total damages (later molded to $1,522,780 and with delay damages entered as judgment of $1,802,575.17).
- The jury’s handwritten breakdown on the verdict form included $1,300,000 for future wage loss, though Stapas conceded at trial he was not seeking future wage loss and no evidence supported such an award.
- Giant Eagle filed a timely post-trial motion arguing the verdict (particularly the $1.3M future wage award) was against the weight of the evidence and sought a new trial; the trial court denied relief but the Superior Court vacated judgment and ordered a new trial limited to damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stapas) | Defendant's Argument (Giant Eagle) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Preservation of challenge to jury partiality/unsupported future wage award | The jury’s award reflects proper compensation for proven harms; the special allocations were advisory only. | Giant Eagle argued it preserved the challenge via a post-trial motion and the $1.3M future wage award was unsupported, showing jury partiality and requiring a new trial. | Preserved: Superior Court held Giant Eagle properly preserved a weight-of-the-evidence challenge in its post-trial motion and vacated the judgment. |
| 2. Whether the $1.3M future wage award requires a new trial on all issues | Jury’s general verdict should stand; special findings are advisory when consistent with general verdict. | The future wage figure was neither sought nor supported and undermines the verdict; new trial required. | New trial warranted but limited to damages: special finding of unsupported future wages made the verdict against the weight of the evidence. |
| 3. Classification of plaintiff as invitee vs. licensee (duty owed) | Stapas was at the store socializing; could be a licensee deserving lesser duty. | Stapas was a customer who entered to shop and thus was an invitee; trial court properly instructed on invitee duty. | Held for Giant Eagle on this point: appellate court agreed plaintiff was an invitee as a matter of law; no error in refusing licensee instruction. |
| 4. Evidentiary/mistrial claims (subsequent remedial measures, lack of insurance, demonstrative exhibit) | The elicited testimony and exhibits were prejudicial; mistrial or new trial required. | Any references were harmless; objections were handled, and curative steps/instructions addressed potential prejudice. | Denial of mistrial and evidentiary rulings affirmed: court found no abuse of discretion or prejudice warranting retrial on liability. |
| 5. JNOV based on assumption of risk | Assumption of risk bars recovery because Stapas pursued and fought McCallister. | No evidence Stapas knew McCallister had a gun or that the risk of shooting was known; jury could find negligence. | Denied: assumption of risk not established as matter of law; jury reasonably found liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fritz v. Wright, 907 A.2d 1083 (Pa. 2006) (distinguishes general verdicts, special findings, and explains effect of special findings when paired with a general verdict)
- Kiser v. Schulte, 648 A.2d 1 (Pa. 1994) (jury verdict must bear reasonable relation to proven damages; new trial limited to damages when liability is fairly determined)
- Criswell v. King, 834 A.2d 505 (Pa. 2003) (post-Picca rule: weight-of-the-evidence challenges need not be raised before jury discharge and may be preserved in post-trial motions)
- Picca v. Kriner, 645 A.2d 868 (Pa. 1994) (an ambiguous or flawed jury verdict must be objected to before jury discharge or the objection is waived)
- Banohashim v. R.S. Enterprises, LLC, 77 A.3d 14 (Pa. Super. 2014) (explains when liability is “fairly determined” for purposes of limiting a new trial to damages)
- Carrender v. Fitterer, 469 A.2d 120 (Pa. 1983) (discusses assumption-of-risk/obvious-danger principles applicable to voluntary encounter of known risks)