The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has declined to take up a dispute over what types of damages a Chester County jury may or may not have included in its lump-sum verdict in a slip-and-fall case.

On May 20, the justices denied allocatur in Showers v. Sam's East, in which a three-judge panel of the Superior Court affirmed a $7,481 verdict for a woman injured when she slipped on water at 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.

Last April, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court 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 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 oral arguments in Pittsburgh, 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.”

In November, the court ruled 5-2 to reverse the Superior Court's ruling. The justices said Giant Eagle was required under the state Supreme Court's 1974 ruling in Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust to lodge a contemporaneous objection to the verdict itself and any errors that preceded the verdict during trial, which it failed to do.

“When the trial court's tipstaff read the jury's itemized verdict, Giant Eagle had a basis to object because the verdict did not conform to the trial court's instruction to return a single, lump-sum verdict and because the jury awarded damages for future lost wages, a category of damages that Stapas was not entitled to as a matter of law,” Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy wrote for the majority. ”By failing to raise an objection at any point during the trial before the jury was discharged, Giant Eagle waived its challenge to the jury's verdict.”

Counsel for Showers, David Dessen of Dessen, Moses & Rossitto in Willow Grove, declined to comment on the allocatur denial.

Counsel for Sam's East, Patrick McDonnell of McDonnell & Associates in King of Prussia, also declined to comment.