*1 400 559, Pa. 268 Philadelphia, v. Company
Pennsylvania if but even agree; we ruling 76. A. With 112 touching did of cross-examination we not, limitation sound such matters is within collateral discretion su Pa., v. Judge: BerkleyJeannette, 373 trial 268 Pa., pra; Company v. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania supra. , verdict, inadequacy third The reason contention of this merit. The basis is likewise without verdict tha board of view awarded is thet only whereas the jury awarded one-half $56,000, Com for Witnesses namely $28,000. that sum, $28,000; from $20,000 valued property monwealth $66, ranged sses' valuations appellant'switne is of the board 000 award $70,000. view an considered or factor important circumstance be requested inadequacy either new when a not jury's verdict, excessiveness but 408 Inc. v. County, controlling: Frontage, Allegheny 407 2d v. 519; Vaughan A. Commonwealth, Pa. 165, 182 Turn v. 12; Pennsylvania Pa. A. 2d 189, 180 Schuster A. Pa. 2d Mazur 447; 395 149 pike Commission, 441, Pa. 134 A. 2d Commonwealth, v. 669. ex various between discrepancy valuations to re was a perts who testified refusal find no discretion in the and we abuse of solve, trial. affirmed. Judgment
Walbert, Appellant, v. Farina. *2 June 1963. Before C. Mus- Argued 6, J., Bell, Roberts, O’Brien Jones, manno, Cohen, Eagen, JJ. Batdorf, him David J.
Charles H. Weidner, appellant. and Stevens & Lee, appellee. R. Ceorge Eves, 1963: by 2, Opinion July Mr. Musmanno, Justice of an result Robert killed R. as Walbert when accident which occurred on December 1, Jerome car driven by his was struck car being ad- widow, Farina. Mrs. Esther E. Walbert, trespass ministratrix actions his estate, brought *3 Acts Farina under and Survival against the Death in of a verdict Pennsylvania. returned action of for survival sum in the plaintiff $1500 latter amount and the death action, $2762.23 funeral hospital total of and merely the being medical, averring moved for plaintiff bills. a new of verdict. refused inadequacy The trial court Superior plaintiff appealed motion and the to the A affirmed the refusal of a trial. Court which appeal for allocatur followed and petition we allowed Court. to this
If defendant Jerome Farina for responsible was which snuffed out the of Robert Wal- the collision life slightest total seem, by glance would at the bert, represent that it does not an amount consonant verdict, of a man’s life, the value especially who killed. The decedent 49 when only employed Textile Machine working an erector Works, plant local and Reading, at the from away both home and missions assignments various for his company. to the up for date of earnings His his were death, for hotel and plus expenses. $868.50 travel $5923.47, In plus 1956 his earnings amounted $8,060.17, $945 for out-of-town expenses.
Robert Walbert had a at the time life expectancy health his death of He in excellent 23.36 years. remain there no reason could not appeared why he To at his until he attained the of 65. allow job age prospectus in a of that profitable only character $500 re- for if one per year years three only shocking, losses, sus- verdicts as for gards being compensatory loss tained. To amount for the the widow deny any between the date of her death husband’s wages anticipatible the time trial and for no future loss arithmetic on.the unacceptable future is also earnings responsible' blackboard of if the defendant was justice, for death of Robert Walbert. that.a de-
When a concludes jury conscientiously trun- what did fendant has no excuse he doing extra-juridical it may by the life cating another, not, whim- or off into the reasoning wandering realms withhold from neighborhood sy philosophy, its it has decided he what, by verdict, entitled to full compensation have, namely, losses. two
It appear would the decedent, day clothes before the removed some of his accident, Reading the marital home to another address where he had rented two rooms. The lower court, *4 questions: a new asked the refusing trial, rhetorically together “Were Mr. and Mrs. Walbert actually living were or were wife, they separated, husband Could the separate? about to have asked they jury plaintiff left the decedent why when Sunday both not afternoon, until were Friday working?”1 1 in a moribund the decedent was state from Since 4:15 Sun
day morning it not clear what adverse is conclusion the trial court by stating that he did not call to draw on intended his wife Sun day afternoon. action of affirming Superior Court, have, con- might “The well jury very said: court, separat- her husband plaintiff
cluded that had. fu- much in the very not receive might ed and that she had he lived.” earnings from his ture of. part on speculation This unwarranted worst both Even at the assuming tribunals. al estranged, and wife had been
plaintiff temporarily supposi denied this plaintiff though strenuously justify not assumption tion at this would trial, decide to different civil wholly action, jury, wife. supported would not have husband sup A obligation husband has the and moral legal excused from that port his wife and he not be may to. clothing because he took some obligation simply In DeSantis place another town. v. Maddalon, Philadelphia Pa. v. Court, citing Gentile 296, 300, & 274 Pa. said: “A husband Reading Rwy., sup presumed perform father legal duty minor his wife and porting children; any they event, are entitled to what the him compelled law would have he to furnish whether had them, previously done so not.”
The lower court said that the verdict com- was a promise verdict. We do not believe it com- was a promise and it verdict, certainly compensa- was not a tory verdict. It was what might be called a consola- tory verdict which verdict, damns with sym- faint The verdict pathy. was a patronizing verdict, which there is no warrant in our system of trial' A is not to ladle jury. out largess or throw sops. dispense justice It and it must on do so and not speculation; facts on reality and not on in- The decedent and nuendo. been two married 29 children years, had been born of the support marriage. wife would be entitled The. had reached the that she now of 52 age to, could years, *5 not be on wiped based the assumption because of an presen- in meagerest its manner testimony which, litigation. no on issues the tation, bearing the lower court’s verdict assumption the a compromise arbitrary one on was not based alone separation hypothesis of between decedent and his wife. court weight said evidence was with the defendant: “If weighs one have testimony we defendant, the inescapable conclusion that preponderance is with testimony clearly the defendant.” It then cited the of Carpenelli case v. Scranton Bus 350 Pa. Co., quoted : “But when evidence is divided in equally or a pre when the weight, fortiori, ponderance of with defendant testimony clearly and the verdict rendered for the while plaintiff, small, the problem becomes an substantial, entirely one of different for in nature, such event it can no rea more be said that sonably the plaintiff recovered too little than that he should not have recovered there all; in such a fore, case it is just or more likely, likely, of a granting trial would constitute an act of injustice to the defendant rather than of jus tice to plaintiff.”
Let us see whether testi preponderance of the is so mony clearly the defendant as to into bring play argument the Carpenelli case. On night of November 30, 1957, Robert Walbert attended a political which meeting, following he escorted two to a restaurant where they ladies enjoyed a snack and He lingered conversation. then drove one of them proceeded parked her car to take the Mrs. other, her home Schleifenheimer, North 10th Street Arrived in front of her Reading. house, he was back space into ing up parking when another car traveling direction he the same was facing (north), struck the of his car, demolishing left side and inflicting fatal on him. injuries
á06 *6 part front that the
Mrs. Schleifenheimer testified the beyond of 3 feet car extended or Walbert’s about of the front end on the east side of the cars parked other when stationary street. car was 'Walbert’s . a severe blow into received car crashed it. Walbert Mrs. to pain he said the stomach and while that my Oh, Florence, Schleifenheimer: stomach. “Oh, at a ter- come down somebody is a terrible to see feeling This his way.”: rific rate of can’t out speed get. and of. of under the rule admitted evidence utterance was res gestae. point- one-way thoroughfare, 10th Street is a
North defendant that north. It contention was the ing street of that north on the west side proceeding was he. Wal- of him. out front and that the decedent came were from collision resulting bert’s car and debris arrived police on when the the east side street marks Skid to the accident. immediately investigate spelling on the led to the defendant’s car, street car and then to his from behind the decedent’s path The condition finally stopped. point where away, left half torn the decedent’s with its whole car, violence spoke indubitably great resulting shoes of tremendous The decedent’s application speed. off feet. his whipped were car evidence of defendant’s
In addition this on side wrong considering his being street, in his evidence were there was parked path, cars which intoxicated. policemen, defendant was Three that disinterested testified completely litigation, all defendant after the accident de- they seeing bloodshot, his gait, odor unsteady his eyes, scribed belligerent his person, attitude and of alcohol un- all testified that They in their opin- cooperativeness. the influence liquor. under intoxicating ion he 12 years’ experience Romanski, as a A. detec- W. opinion in his testified defendant was un- tive, intoxicating liquor extent der the influence of incapable operating “he motor vehicle.” impartial who Another witness E. Wise, L. facing roomed in accident. the house the scene street, When he heard the hastened into the crash he accompanied observed the location of the cars and hospital. He Mrs. Schleifenheimer and Farina to the hospital “wobbly un- stated that at the Farina was steady” opinion, in his he was intoxicated. that,
The defendant himself had been admitted that he drinking night. Hosiery He was at the a bartender “keep Workers did not testified that he Club, *7 night of track the numbers beers” he consumed the although one he it was accident, at time said “maybe six or seven.” inculpating
From all this difficult evidence it is why regarded to see the trial court have the should lopsidedly evidence so in that favor of the defendant regarded compromise the verdict to be ver- as a dict. It is true the defendant we have testified, stated, he that was on the side of the street and west pulled that the decedent front of and in him, supported by this he was another but the witness,2 testimony jury clash made out a case for which, the having question once resolved the of fact in favor of plaintiff, the should have allowed to full her the proved damages, extent of the and not have whittled it down the knife of extraneous matters. refusing suggested
The trial the court, new trial, might guilty the that decedent been have of contribu- negligence. tory nothing plaintiff’s There was in the intimating contributory negligence. case there Then, presumption always spirit, like which, rises body proclaim a dead to that the decedent wanted and therefore exercised due to live care. This witness was an officer of the club which the defendant aas bartender.
served defendant’s, cross-ex-
During counsel, trial you police-officers, amining “And asked: Shapior’s hearing in Alderman recall that after Farina, acquitted in .and Mr. tried, .was indicted, office manslaughter?” charge involuntary This, improper question highly. called was jurors juror.3 aware all are Not of a withdrawal proof. required for in the measure difference the. required for in a criminal case .and that a. conviction highly plaintiff case. It is in a civil a possible verdict presented civil that the evidence all regard of. defendant trial with evaporated intoxication .the light,
in the of-the observation acquitted court, in the criminal defendant had been though question answered not even was because, (as objection) an clear from result of it was reply way put, an affirmative which it. judge harm was satisfied that no inevitable. question he done because to the forget question.” jury: told the “You will the last forget vitally tell a which is To issue,before, part asking them is them the crucial like important forget an witness was a dwarf with humped . a. back. *8 complains that she not allowed
The prior that there been to show consonant state a. by plaintiff per witness and that ment a she was not prior inconsistent a mitted show statement The cases of Risbon defendant witness. v. 387 Cottom, Bizich 391 Pa. v. Sears, 155 Pa. are authori 640, guidance in situations of ties kinds indicated. plaintiff asks that a new trial be ordered and to the damages. it be limited a new trial but it justify demands does not record to the damages. confined ascertainment trial new Mannino, 3 Superior Shoup 188 Pa. v. Ct. Franc, Patton v. 306. Pa. Reversed with a venire facias de novo.
Dissenting Opinion Bell: Mr. Chief Justice was a evidence substantial conflict There. as to Under negligence negligence. contributory these ob- the verdict of the circumstances, I viously compromise verdict and with the agree trial and with the Judge Superior Court weight negligence evidence as to contributory be and that a defendant, should refused.
I the judgments opinion would affirm on the Superior Ervin Court. Judge Appellant, St. Paul Fire and Brenneman, v. Company. Marine Insurance