holding that a loss of consortium claim is subject to the same jury compromise of claimed damages based on a lack of evidentiary integrity as is the claim of the physically-injured spouse
How later courts described this case
- holding that a loss of consortium claim is subject to the same jury compromise of claimed damages based on a lack of evidentiary integrity as is the claim of the physically-injured spouse
- applying Ammon, court deemed it inappropriate to consider pre-trial settlement figures in ruling upon motions by a plaintiff and his wife seeking a new trial based upon alleged insufficiency of the verdict
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DEL SOLE, J.,
dissenting:
¶ 1 I agree with the Majority’s statement of law governing inadequate verdicts. It is the application of these principles to the facts of this case with which I disagree.
¶ 2 From the Majority Opinion, we learn “that this was a case of inescapable liability” and “there is no basis for argument for compromise of damages on the basis of contested liability.” Op. at 703. Further, I agree with the Majority in finding:
The extensive expert testimony placed in evidence by plaintiff Beswick, leaves no room for doubt that he suffered severe and disabling injuries as an immediate result of the accident. He was found in the vehicle by emergency medical personnel in an unconscious state, bleeding from the nose, and showing signs of brain injury. Taken to Crozer Chester Hospital, the brain injury was confirmed by tests. He was also found to be suffering from a fractured pelvis, and a fractured ankle which required surgical repair. His unconscious state continued for several days and, thereafter, he evidenced fever and disorientation. With some improvement, Beswick was transferred to Bryn Mawr Rehabilitation Hospital. He was placed on a comprehensive rehabilitation program for his severe brain injury which was described as diffuse, but demonstrated by evidence of hemorrhage of the right *707 parietal region. He exhibited mood and personality changes, memory and attention span deficits, guilt and anxiety. The stays at Crozer Chester and Bryn Mawr were both in excess of three weeks. Upon discharge, Beswick continued to receive treatment for his functional deficits which were deemed to be permanent.
Op. at 703 & 704.
¶3 With stipulated special damages to Paul Beswick of $4,640.75, I am convinced that the award of $26,359.25 for pain, suffering and inconvenience, past, present and future is so woefully inadequate that “it bears no reasonable relation to the loss suffered by the plaintiff.” Kiser v. Schulte 538 Pa. 219 , 648 A.2d 1, at 4 (1994).
¶ 4 The Majority notes that the relationship between Appellant and Appellee, and Appellant’s employment history would all serve to diminish Appellant’s wage loss claim. Also, Appellant’s previous medical history served to diminish Appellant’s post-accident related claims. With these assessments, I agree. However, the amount awarded to Appellant, coupled with the award for loss of consortium to Appellant’s wife solely of an amount equal to her stipulated wage loss, lead me to conclude that the verdict is the product of misapprehension or mistake on the part of the jury. This verdict should not be permitted to stand. Therefore, I must dissent.
¶ 5 MUSMANNO, J., joins.