After several rounds of appeal, the plaintiff in a personal injury case was awarded a new trial following a jury verdict that the court determined was unjust.  In Themens v Spranger, No. 1675 EDA 2017 (Pa. Super 2018), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed an April 27, 2017 Order in which the trial court granted Themens’s appeal for a new trial.

The underlying case involved a motor vehicle accident in November 2012, in which S. Spranger’s vehicle collided with Themens’s vehicle in Chester County, Pennsylvania.  Themens was taken to the hospital and was diagnosed with cervical and lumbar strain/sprain and whiplash injuries.  Themens continued to complain of sciatica, lower back and leg pain, and neck and shoulder pain for years following the accident.  Themens also alleged that, as a result of her injuries suffered in the accident, she could was forced to miss time performing her secretarial duties for her husband’s business, and could no longer care for her grandchildren, visit her mother, or swim and exercise as she had done before the accident.

In December 2014, Themens was awarded $12,160 in damages following a magisterial district court decision, which the Sprangers appealed.  Themens was then awarded $25,000 by an arbitration panel following the magisterial district court appeal.  The Sprangers appealed the arbitration award to the court of common pleas.  Prior to trial, S. Spranger admitted that she failed to see Themens’s vehicle before striking it with her vehicle, and therefore stipulated that she was negligent.  Thus, the jury trial in the court of common pleas was limited to the issues of causation and damages only.

In addition to testimony from an insurance inspector, Themens, and Spranger; both parties also offered medical expert reports that were introduced by stipulation and read to the jury.  Themens’s medical expert report diagnosed Themens with various lower back, spine, lumbar, and radiating lower extremity injuries, which prevented Themens from returning “to her pre-injury baseline.”  The report also opined that Themens’s complaints were the direct result of the injures she sustained in the motor vehicle accident.  In response, Spranger’s medical expert report was also read to the jury and noted the absence of objective findings and opined that Spranger’s medical expert was unable to identify a condition that would produce a disability related to the motor vehicle accident.

In December 2016, the jury awarded Themens $2,000 in damages for past, present, and future pain and suffering, embarrassment and humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life.  Themens appealed for post-trial relief in the form of a new trial, claiming that the damage award was grossly inadequate to fairly compensate her for her injuries.  In April 2017, the trial court issued an order granting Themens a new trial, which Spranger appealed arguing that the trial court’s issuance of a new trial constituted an abuse of discretion because the jury verdict did not ‘shock the conscience’ and the damages were not against the weight of evidence.  In its decision affirming the trial court’s granting of a new trial, the PA Superior Court emphasized that Spranger stipulated that she was negligent and that Themens’s medical expert report diagnosing her injuries was uncontroverted.  The Court went on to define “uncontroverted” as “evidence which is unopposed or unchallenged, not merely uncontradicted,” and further explained that it is not necessary that an opposing party introduce affirmative countervailing evidence, but rather that effective cross-examination and argument may suffice.  The Court then found that the trial court’s decision that the jury’s verdict was an injustice that bore no reasonable relationship to the loss suffered by Themens did not constitute an abuse of discretion by the lower court.  In reaching its decision, the Superior Court noted that, not only did Spranger concede negligence, but Themens’s medical expert was essentially uncontroverted because the medical expert report presented by Spranger failed to offer an opinion that Themens was not injured in the accident or that Themens’s injuries were not caused by the motor vehicle accident.  This case, in which the defense achieved a favorable $2,000 verdict initially, illustrates the vital role that strategic pre-trial decisions involving stipulations and expert testimony can play throughout the entire life span of a litigation.

This must have been a thoroughly frustrating decision for Spranger’s attorney, who it seems did too good of a job cross-examining plaintiff and her experts, limiting her damages to such an extent, that the Court was inclined to award her a new trial.   Sometimes, a defendant just can’t “win.”  Thanks to Greg Herrold for his contribution to this post.  Please email Brian Gibbons with any questions.