At Arguments Over Nixed Verdict, Justices Question Whether Counsel Knew Too Much
Pennsylvania Supreme Court oral arguments over a nixed $2.1 million jury award to a man who was shot outside of a Pittsburgh convenience store focused heavily on whether a defendant should be able to challenge a lump sum verdict based on a breakdown of damages the attorneys were never supposed to be privy to.
April 19, 2018 at 01:00 PM
5 minute read
Photo by Jason Doiy
Pennsylvania Supreme Court oral arguments over a nixed $2.1 million jury award to a man who was shot outside of a Pittsburgh convenience store focused heavily on whether a defendant should be able to challenge a lump sum verdict based on a breakdown of damages the attorneys were never supposed to be privy to.
In Stapas v. Giant Eagle, the justices granted allocatur to plaintiff John Stapas, who was disabled as a result of the shooting, but denied another allocatur petition filed by the defendant, Giant Eagle, corporate owner of the GetGo convenience store chain.
Allocatur was granted to the plaintiff on two questions:
First, “does the Superior Court's decision to reverse the trial court's finding of waiver, despite Giant Eagle's failure to object to flawed jury instructions, flawed verdict slip and/or the problematic verdict, all of which contributed to the error complained of on appeal, conflict with this court's holding in Straub v. Cherne Industries … a case not considered by the Superior Court?”
And second, “does the Superior Court's decision to excuse Giant Eagle's failures to object to flawed jury instructions, flawed verdict slip and/or a problematic verdict, merely because the appeal is styled as a 'challenge to the weight of the evidence,' conflict with the timely objection requirement of Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust?”
The Allegheny County jury in Stapas had been instructed by the trial judge to return a single sum verdict, but instead it noted the breakdown of damages on the verdict slip—including $1.3 million in future wage loss.
On appeal, the Superior Court agreed with Giant Eagle's argument that the jury's future wage loss award for Stapas was unsupported by the record and undermined the entire verdict, and the jury did not follow instructions to provide a lump sum verdict.
“It is not lost on us that had the jury followed the trial court's instructions and returned a single sum verdict, we would not be able to discern whether the jury awarded any part of that sum for future lost wages. However, that is not the case,” Superior Court Judge Victor Stabile wrote in the court's opinion. “As reflected on the record, the jury clearly allocated $1,300,000 for future lost wages that were unsupported by the evidence and were specifically disclaimed by Stapas' counsel. Although Lady Justice is blindfolded, we will not don blinders to pretend the jury was within its rights to award damages that were neither sought nor proven.”
At oral arguments in Pittsburgh on April 10, Justice Max Baer sought to clarify what the appeal was really about.
Baer said the case “seems to have two issues conflated within it”: the first, whether the verdict slip was inconsistent; the second, whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
Counsel for Stapas, Michael Murphy of Ogg, Murphy & Perkosky in Pittsburgh, replied, “We absolutely do not have a weight of the evidence issue.”
Chief Justice Thomas Saylor, seeking to distill the issue even further, added, “You view it as a waiver case, don't you?”
“It is a waiver case,” Murphy replied.
But Justice Christine Donohue took the arguments in another direction, noting what she viewed as “the more fundamental issue” in the case: the fact that the jury had been instructed to come back with a lump sum award and, had they followed that directive, counsel would not have known nor had a right to know that a portion of that sum was for future lost wages.
“This is no different than hearing the [jurors] out in the hallway saying, 'Jeez, isn't it nice that we gave him $1.8 million in future work loss?'” Donohue said. “Where would you go with that? Nowhere. It's part of the jury's deliberation process.”
Giant Eagle's counsel, Scott Livingston of Marcus & Shapira in Pittsburgh, insisted that his client was not challenging the trial court's jury instructions or the verdict sheet.
Instead, Livingston said, Giant Eagle's position was that the verdict went against the weight of the evidence.
“It shocked the Superior Court's judicial conscience and I think it probably would shock all those kids back there if they read the briefs,” Livingston said, referring to a group of local students who were in the courtroom to observe the argument session.
“Let's assume it's the most shocking thing anybody will hear all week,” Justice David Wecht said. “How did you preserve it?”
Livingston replied that the challenge was properly preserved through post-trial motions.
Wecht also noted that, while Livingston characterized the appeal as a weight of the evidence challenge, “it still smells a lot like a sufficiency challenge.”
“That's an option for this court, I suppose,” Livingston said, noting that his client had also properly raised and preserved a sufficiency challenge but that the Superior Court had sided against it on that issue and for it on the weight of the evidence issue.
But Baer, circling back to Donohue's earlier point, noted again that, had the jury simply written down a lump sum of $2 million on the verdict sheet as instructed, “your argument would not be available to you.”
“Well, we would have a harder argument to make,” Livingston replied. “We still believe that the total award for $2 million, given the evidence, was against the weight.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
3 minute readDe-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
Risk Mitigation: Employee Engagement Results in Fewer Lawsuits (and Other Benefits)
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 2Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 3Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 4'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 5Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250