Superior Court: Jury Did Not Neglect Pain, Suffering in Lump-Sum Slip-and-Fall Verdict
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.
November 08, 2018 at 11:33 AM
4 minute read
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.
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
© 2025 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 AllJudge Tanks Prevailing Pittsburgh Attorneys' $2.45M Fee Request to $250K
5 minute readBest Practices for Conducting Workplace Investigations: A Legal and HR Perspective
9 minute readPlaintiff Argues Jury's $22M Punitive Damages Finding Undermines J&J's Talc Trial Win
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gunderson Dettmer Opens Atlanta Office With 3 Partners From Morris Manning
- 2Decision of the Day: Court Holds Accident with Post Driver Was 'Bizarre Occurrence,' Dismisses Action Brought Under Labor Law §240
- 3Judge Recommends Disbarment for Attorney Who Plotted to Hack Judge's Email, Phone
- 4Two Wilkinson Stekloff Associates Among Victims of DC Plane Crash
- 5Two More Victims Alleged in New Sean Combs Sex Trafficking Indictment
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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