Cooley v. Jefferson Bank

Decision Date22 July 1986
PartiesWilliam and Lilly COOLEY, Appellants, v. JEFFERSON BANK and Garrison Express Company, Inc., Appellees.
CourtPennsylvania Superior Court

David F. Binder, Philadelphia, for appellants.

Catherine N. Jasons, Philadelphia, for appellees.

Before WIEAND, BECK and JOHNSON, JJ.

WIEAND, Judge.

On November 21, 1979, Lilly Cooley stumbled over a satchel which had been allowed to remain on the floor of the lobby of the Jefferson Bank in Philadelphia. She grabbed a counter to maintain her balance and aggravated the preexisting, degenerative arthritis in her shoulder. A jury found that Mrs. Cooley had been 30% negligent and the Bank 70% negligent. Damages, the jury determined, were in the amount of $48,500. On appeal from the judgment entered on the verdict, Mrs. Cooley contends: (1) that the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on "momentary forgetfulness"; (2) that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the Bank had to take the plaintiff as it found her; and (3) that the verdict was inadequate. Our review discloses neither trial error nor an inadequate verdict. Therefore, we affirm the judgment.

The doctrine of "momentary forgetfulness" was articulated in Weitz v. Baurkot, 267 Pa.Super. 471, 406 A.2d 1138 (1979). The plaintiff in Weitz, while distracted by events around her, stepped into a hole in the floor of the office where she worked and about which she had previously complained. We held that her forgetfulness or inattention could be excused if the circumstances were such that a person of ordinary prudence, so situated, might have forgotten.

In the instant case, however, Mrs. Cooley had not been aware of the presence of the satchel before she stumbled over it. The satchel was not an impediment about which she had known but momentarily forgotten. Moreover, there was no evidence to suggest an external distraction. Therefore, the issue for the jury to determine was whether appellant's failure to observe and avoid the satchel on the floor when she turned around to leave the bank was brought about by her own failure to exercise reasonable vigilance and care. This issue was properly submitted to the jury on adequate instructions by the trial court.

Similarly, the jury was adequately instructed regarding the aggravation of appellant's pre-existing, arthritic condition. "A trial judge has wide latitude in charging the jury, and may use any particular language provided the language used adequately and fully conveys to the jury the law applicable to the facts of the case." Kearns v. Clark, 343 Pa.Super. 30, 37, 493 A.2d 1358, 1361 (1985), quoting Fish v. Gosnell, 316 Pa.Super. 565, 580, 463 A.2d 1042, 1050 (1983). There was neither inadequacy nor inaccuracy in the instructions of the trial court pertaining to the aggravation of Mrs. Cooley's prior condition.

"[The] duty of assessing damages is within the province of the fact-finder and should not be interfered with unless it clearly appears that the amount awarded resulted from partiality, caprice, prejudice, corruption or some other improper influence." Lokay v. Lehigh Valley Coop. Farmers, Inc., 342 Pa.Super. 89, 99, 492 A.2d 405, 410 (1985), quoting Delahanty v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A., 318 Pa.Super. 90, 117, 464 A.2d 1243, 1257 (1983). "Generally, a verdict will not be disturbed merely on account of the smallness of the damages awarded or because the reviewing court would have awarded more." Morris v. Peckyno, 202 Pa.Super. 490, 492, 198 A.2d 396, 397 (1964), quoting 15 Am.Jur., Damages § 231. " '[T]o support the granting of a new trial for inadequacy, "the injustice of the verdict should stand forth like a beacon." So long as the verdict bears a reasonable resemblance to the damages proved, it is not the function of the court to substitute its judgment for that of the jury. Elza v. Chovan, [396 Pa. 112, 118, 152 A.2d 238, 240 (1959) ]; Morris v. Peckyno, 202 Pa.Superior Ct. 490, 492, 198 A.2d 396[, 397] (1964).' "...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Dranzo v. Winterhalter
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • August 13, 1990
    ...trial for inadequacy of the damage award, the injustice of the verdict "should stand forth like a beacon." Cooley v. Jefferson Bank, 355 Pa.Super. 1, 4, 512 A.2d 713, 714 (1986) (citing numerous As the Honorable Samuel J. Rodgers wrote in his opinion of 7-21-89, Marlene Dranzo suffered seve......
  • Sehl v. Vista Linen Rental Serv. Inc.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • November 6, 2000
    ...action, therefore, will not be disturbed on appeal except where there has been a clear abuse of discretion. Cooley v. Jefferson Bank, 355 Pa.Super. 1, 512 A.2d 713, 714-715 (1986) (citations and internal quotation marks ¶ 17 Our review of the evidence fails to disclose that the jury's verdi......
  • Epstein v. Saul Ewing, LLP
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • October 15, 2010
    ...to the damages proved, it is not the function of the court to substitute its judgment for that of the jury.Cooley v. Jefferson Bank, 355 Pa.Super. 1, 512 A.2d 713, 714 (1986) (citations omitted). In the Kanter case, there was conflicting evidence on the question of whether Mr. Epstein agree......
  • Allegheny Energy Supply Co. v. Wolf Run Mining Co.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • October 18, 2012
    ...on account of the smallness of the damages awarded or because the reviewing court would have awarded more.Cooley v. Jefferson Bank, 355 Pa.Super. 1, 512 A.2d 713, 714 (1986) (citations omitted). Instantly, the trial court rejected Allegheny Energy's calculations and ordered past damages and......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT