A jury verdict in a slip-and-fall case that appeared to the plaintiffs to award only medical expenses and ignore pain and suffering was not what it seemed, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled in a case that raised a question about the mysterious nature of lump-sum verdicts similar to one the state Supreme Court recently tackled at oral arguments.

In Showers v. Sam's East, a three-judge panel of the Superior Court affirmed a Chester County jury's $7,481 verdict for a woman injured when she slipped on water in a Sam's Club.

The plaintiffs had argued that they were entitled to a new trial because the jury only awarded medical expenses and failed to award damages for pain and suffering.

But the Superior Court agreed with the trial court that the plaintiffs failed to object at trial to the finalized verdict sheet, which did not require the jury to provide a breakdown of damages.

The appellate court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the jury's verdict neglected pain and suffering. This assertion was based on the fact that the $7,481 figure represented the full amount of plaintiff Donyale Showers' submitted medical expenses.

But the Superior Court agreed with the trial court's assessment of the verdict, noting that the jury was instructed regarding negligence, comparative negligence, and the various damages Showers sought.

“The jury returned a verdict finding Ms. Showers 50 percent comparatively negligent for her injuries,” Judge Judith Ference Olson said. “Thus, the jury was required to reduce Ms. Showers' award by 50 percent. Ms. Showers proved $7,481.40 in medical expenses at trial. Assuming the jury believed this, they would have to reduce that sum by 50 percent when applying the comparative negligence statute. As such, Ms. Showers' medical expenses award would be $3,740.20. The jury then awarded $3,740.20 for other damages. Stated another way, the jury believed that Ms. Showers should receive $14,962.80 in total damages, which ostensibly included damages for pain and suffering. However, because Ms. Showers was 50 percent responsible for her own injuries, she received her apportioned amount of $7,481.40.”

Olson was joined by Judges Jack Panella and Maria McLaughlin.

The Showers case is not the first one in recent memory in which a lump-sum verdict led to confusion.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently heard arguments in Stapas v. Giant Eagle, a case in which a jury that was instructed to award a lump-sum verdict to a man who was shot outside a convenience store and instead included a breakdown of the damages on the verdict slip.

In that case, the Superior Court reversed the $2.1 million verdict, finding that the jury's award of $1.3 million in future wage-loss damages was unsupported by the record.

But at Supreme Court oral arguments in Pittsburgh this past April, several justices appeared skeptical of defendant Giant Eagle's argument attacking the breakdown of the verdict because counsel was never supposed to know the breakdown in the first place.

“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?'” Justice Christine Donohue said. “Where would you go with that? Nowhere. It's part of the jury's deliberation process.”

Counsel for the plaintiffs, David Dessen of Dessen, Moses & Rossitto in Willow Grove, could not be reached for comment; nor could counsel for Sam's East, Patrick McDonnell of McDonnell & Associates in King of Prussia.