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.”