Stapas v. Giant Eagle, Inc.
198 A.3d 1033
| Pa. | 2018Background
- 17‑year‑old plaintiff Stapas was shot outside a GetGo; he missed six weeks of work and claimed damages for past wages, medical costs, pain and suffering, etc.; he did not present evidence or make a claim for future wage loss at trial.
- The jury verdict sheet asked for a single lump‑sum verdict but listed damage categories (including “wage loss”); the jury itemized amounts and wrote $1,300,000 as “future” wage loss and returned a large total.
- Trial court read the itemized amounts aloud; neither party objected; the jury was polled and discharged; the court entered a molded verdict adjusting for comparative negligence and added delay damages.
- Giant Eagle filed post‑trial motions (new trial/JNOV/remittitur) asserting the future wage award was unsupported; the trial court deemed objections waived for failure to object before discharge.
- The Superior Court reversed, treating the verdict as a general verdict with special findings and holding Giant Eagle preserved a weight‑of‑the‑evidence challenge by timely post‑trial motion because Criswell allows raising weight claims after discharge.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether a party must object before jury discharge when the post‑trial contention challenges the verdict as unsupported (weight) versus a trial error/correctable defect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stapas) | Defendant's Argument (Giant Eagle) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Giant Eagle waived its challenge to the jury's award of future wage loss by failing to object before the jury was discharged | Giant Eagle failed to object to the verdict form, the damages instructions, and the itemized verdict before discharge; contemporaneous objection was required under Dilliplaine/Rule 227.1 | The claim is a weight‑of‑the‑evidence challenge that ripens only after the verdict (Criswell), so post‑trial motions preserved the issue | Held: Waived. Under Dilliplaine/Rule 227.1, objections to trial errors or verdicts arising from trial proceedings must be raised before discharge; Giant Eagle failed to preserve this ground |
| Whether the challenge is properly characterized as a weight‑of‑the‑evidence claim (permitting first presentation in post‑trial motion) | The award was unsupported by evidence and thus a weight challenge appropriate for post‑trial review | The award was not a true weight claim because no evidence of future wages was presented; this is a legal insufficiency/trial error requiring contemporaneous objection | Held: Not a weight claim. Because there was no admissible evidence or competing proof on future wages, the issue was one of law/trial error and was waived without timely objection |
| Whether trial court could have corrected the problem if notified before discharge (i.e., trial court error correctable by re‑instruction or clarification) | N/A (Stapas argues trial court could clarify and that objecting would have allowed correction) | Giant Eagle contends recharging or clarification could not cure a weight problem and would amount to directing the jury; thus post‑trial review is proper | Held: Trial court could have corrected or clarified (e.g., instruct on past vs future wage loss or require jury clarification); failure to object deprived court of that opportunity, supporting waiver under Dilliplaine |
Key Cases Cited
- Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co., 322 A.2d 114 (Pa. 1974) (abolished fundamental‑error review; requires timely, specific objection to preserve trial errors)
- Criswell v. King, 834 A.2d 505 (Pa. 2003) (weight‑of‑the‑evidence claims ripen only after verdict and may first be raised in post‑trial motions)
- Straub v. Cherne Indus., 880 A.2d 561 (Pa. 2005) (sufficiency or legal‑ability challenges that depend on trial instructions or verdict form must be preserved by contemporaneous objection)
- Fritz v. Wright, 907 A.2d 1083 (Pa. 2006) (special findings consistent with a general verdict are generally advisory)