Zielke, D. v. Mullen, J.
3174 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 21, 2016Background
- On Sept. 9, 2009, Donna Zielke fell down a five-step interior stairway at defendants James and Linda Mullen’s home after a handrail had been removed and not reinstalled while hosting a wedding reception.
- Zielke fractured a bone in her left foot, underwent surgery including removal of a bone, wore a recuperative boot for months, missed work, and suffered chronic blistering and ongoing pain with a possibility of future procedures.
- The Mullens admitted they removed the handrail to paint and failed to reinstall it before guests arrived. An engineering report described irregular tread/riser dimensions at the top step that could create a "false sense of security."
- The jury found the Mullens negligent and that their negligence caused Zielke’s injuries, and awarded $13,138.34 for past/future medical expenses and lost earnings but awarded $0 for non-economic damages (pain and suffering, etc.).
- Zielke moved for additur or a new trial limited to non-economic damages; the trial court denied relief. Zielke appealed and the Superior Court reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a jury’s $0 award for non-economic damages is against the weight of the evidence | Zielke: injuries were serious, objectively cause pain and suffering, and the jury could not lawfully ignore compensable non-economic harm | Mullens: (implicitly) jury could reasonably find no compensable pain or attribute pain to pre-existing conditions or other events | Court: Reversed — $0 for pain and suffering bore no reasonable relation to proven, compensable injuries; new trial on non-economic damages ordered |
| Whether trial court erred denying post-trial relief where the jury awarded medical expenses but no pain & suffering | Zielke: trial court lacked basis to believe jury disbelieved her or found preexisting conditions solely responsible | Mullens: jury verdict permissible in light of possible alternative causation and preexisting conditions | Court: Trial court abused discretion given undisputed serious injuries tied to defendants’ negligence; relief required |
| Whether additur or new trial was appropriate remedy | Zielke: at minimum, new trial limited to non-economic damages or additur because award equaled medical expenses only | Mullens: (implicitly) verdict reflected jury discretion; no basis for additur | Court: Ordered new trial on damages only (did not direct additur) |
| Whether this case is controlled by precedent permitting $0 non-economic award | Zielke: distinguishes Majczyk (minor injuries) and analogizes to Burnhauser (serious injury with $0 award) | Mullens: may rely on Majczyk and jury factfinding | Court: Agreed with Zielke — Majczyk distinguishable; Burnhauser and related precedent control here |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiser v. Schulte, 648 A.2d 1 (Pa. 1994) (new trial for damages warranted when verdict bears no reasonable relation to loss)
- Majczyk v. Oesch, 789 A.2d 717 (Pa. Super. 2001) (jury may award zero for pain and suffering when injuries are minor or not compensable)
- Burnhauser v. Bumberger, 745 A.2d 1256 (Pa. Super. 2000) (zero award for pain and suffering inconsistent with serious injuries; new trial appropriate)
- Davis v. Mullen, 773 A.2d 764 (Pa. 2001) (standards for disturbing jury verdicts for inadequacy)
- Boggavarapu v. Ponist, 542 A.2d 516 (Pa. 1988) (identifies injuries that ordinarily carry accompanying pain and suffering)
- Marsh v. Hanley, 856 A.2d 138 (Pa. Super. 2004) (upholding relief where verdict failed to compensate for non-economic harms despite proven injury)