A Plaintiff who was denied pain and suffering damages in a 2015 jury verdict was recently granted a new trial on non-economic (pain and suffering) damages by the Pennsylvania Superior Court. In Zielke v. Mullen, the appellate court reversed a Delaware County Court of Common Pleas’ order denying Plaintiff’s post-trial motion for a new trial relating to her non-economic damages.
The plaintiff suffered a fracture in her left foot when she fell while descending stairs at the defendants’ home. Plaintiff’s injury required surgery and the removal of the fractured bone, followed by the use of a recuperative boot for several months after the surgery. The defendants had removed the handrail on the staircase in order to paint, and had neglected to reinstall the handrail before plaintiff and her husband attended a wedding reception at their home. The absence of a handrail contributed to the fall, and a jury determined that the defendants’negligence was a cause of plaintiff’s injuries.
The jury awarded plaintiff approximately $13,000 in damages for past and future medical expenses, as well as lost earnings. However, the jury awarded zero damages for non-economic loss (pain and suffering, embarrassment/humiliation, loss of life’s pleasures, and disfigurement).
Following the verdict, Plaintiff’s motion for additur, or in the alternative, a new trial solely on the issue of non-economic loss, and the trial court denied the motion. In reversing the trial court’s denial, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania determined that Plaintiff’s injuries were serious enough that they were “of the type that natural and normally cause pain and suffering.” The Superior Court determined that the jury verdict should be set aside because it “clearly appear[ed] from uncontradicted evidence that the amount of the verdict bears no reasonable relation to the loss suffered by the plaintiff [and] is so contrary to the evidence as to ‘shock one’s sense of justice,’” citing Davis v. Mullen, 773 A.2d 764, 767 (Pa. 2001).
This was certainly a frustrating decision for defendants and their attorneys, who appear to have done “too good” of a job defending the damages claimed against them. Thanks to Greg Herrold for his contribution to this post. Please email Brian Gibbons with any questions.