# Kaufman v. Campos

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · June 13, 2003 · 2003 Pa. Super. 229

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9691662

## Case

- **Full name:** Margaret KAUFMAN, Appellant, v. John E. CAMPOS, Appellee
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 13, 2003
- **Citations:** 2003 Pa. Super. 229; 827 A.2d 1209; 2003 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1758
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Popovich
- **Judges:** Johnson, Klein, Popovich
- **Cited by:** 20 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9691662

## Opinion text

POPOVICH, J.,
Concurring and Dissenting.
¶ 1 I agree with the majority that Kaufman waived her issue with the trial court’s *1213 instruction to the jury regarding the pain and suffering award because she failed to make a timely and specific objection. However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the mere fact that the damage award equaled the amount of the medical bills does not mean that the jury failed to award any damages for pain and suffering. The majority states, “[Ujnder the law and the facts of this case, some award for pain and suffering was necessary.” Slip Op. at 5. Considering that the jury asked the trial court, “[I]f we want the plaintiff to receive medical expenses only how do we fill out question number 5 and 6,” I find it difficult to conclude that the jury award of $8,228.99, which was the exact amount of the medical expenses, included any amount for pain and suffering. It is true that we cannot speculate to the manner of the jury’s deliberations, but it seems more than coincidence that the award amount would equal the exact amount of the medical bills. However, since Kaufman failed to object and this issue was waived, I concur in the result.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9691662. Public record. Not legal advice.