manufacturer should anticipate uses of product which are usual and customary in the industry
How later courts described this case
- manufacturer should anticipate uses of product which are usual and customary in the industry
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SPAETH, Judge
(concurring and dissenting):
I dissent on the issue of damages.
Appellant Lambert offered sufficient evidence on permanent disability to get that question to the jury. See my dissent in Havens v. Tonner, 243 Pa.Super. 371 at 381 , 365 A.2d 1271 (1976). The trial judge’s charge on this point was careful and complete. Assuming that the jury found appellant permanently disabled (as they properly could have), appellant proved lost future earnings (reduced to present worth) of $355,361.76, lost past earnings of $18,803.36, and medical expenses of $4,879.74, for a total of $379,044.86. The difference between this total and the damages awarded is $120,955.14. In view of appellant’s testimony of excruciating pain, and his age (27 at the time of the accident in 1972), I do *144 not find that difference excessive as compensation for pain and suffering. In saying it was excessive, the trial judge, in my view, substituted his judgment for the jury’s. Tonik v. Apex Garages, Inc., 442 Pa. 373 , 275 A.2d 296 (1971).
The order granting a new trial as to damages should be reversed.