Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices appeared to be at odds during a Tuesday hearing over the appropriate way to challenge a specific portion of a lump-sum verdict, with several expressing doubt on the idea that the defendants should have proposed an itemized verdict slip at trial.  

As the justices heard arguments over whether defendants could seek a new trial on pain and suffering damages on a non-itemized jury verdict, they disagreed on the duty the defendants had to anticipate the matters on which they would later seek an appeal.