Grobengieser v. Clearfield Cheese Co., Civ. A. No. 6934.

• Decision Date: 05 December 1950
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 6934.
• Citation: 94 F. Supp. 402
• Parties: GROBENGIESER et al. v. CLEARFIELD CHEESE CO., Inc. (BUYDOS, third party defendant).
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

94 F. Supp. 402

GROBENGIESER et al. v. CLEARFIELD CHEESE CO., Inc. (BUYDOS, third party defendant).

Civ. A. No. 6934.

United States District Court W. D. Pennsylvania.

December 5, 1950.

Harry Savage (of Margiotti & Casey), Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiffs.

Stanford M. Chilcote, of Dickie, Robinson & McCamey), Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.

Milton W. Lamproplos (of Smith, Buchanan & Ingersoll), Pittsburgh, Pa., for third party defendant.

GOURLEY, District Judge.

This proceeding relates to claims for damages arising out of an automobile accident. The jury returned the following verdicts:

(a) Damages in the amount of $8,850.00 to the plaintiffs, Ethel Grobengieser and John Grobengieser, against Clearfield Cheese Company, a corporation, original defendant, and J. L. Buydos, Third Party Defendant:

(1) To the plaintiff, Ethel Grobengieser, $5,000.00.

(2) To the plaintiff, John Grobengieser, $3,850.00.

(b) Damages in the amount of $6,150.00 in favor of Virginia M. Buydos against Clearfield Cheese Company, a corporation, original defendant, and J. L. Buydos, Third Party Defendant.

Motions for a new trial have been filed by both defendants. It is contended:

(a) Negligence does not exist as to J. L. Buydos, Third Party Defendant.

(b) The verdicts are excessive.

(c) No evidence exists as to impairment of earning power of the plaintiffs, Ethel Grobengieser or Virginia M. Buydos.

(d) The court erred in instructing the jury relative to impairment of earning power.

The plaintiffs were residents of Missouri, the original defendant a resident of Pennsylvania, and the accident occurred in Pennsylvania.

All inferences most favorable to the plaintiffs must be taken from the evidence. Courts are not free to reweigh the evidence and set aside the jury verdict merely because the jury could have drawn different inferences or conclusions, or because judges feel that other results are more reasonable. Masterson v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 3 Cir. 182 F.2d 793.

Federal jurisdiction is based solely on diversity of citizenship. The court must, therefore, apply the law of the state in which the action is brought, including such state's conflict of laws rules. Reference must, therefore, be made to the place of the tort for the legal effect to be given the facts and evidence. Moran v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., 3 Cir., 166 F.2d 908.

Pennsylvania law, therefore, applies.

No useful purpose could be served by making reference to the circumstances of the accident. Suffice to say, there is evidence to sustain the finding of negligence against both the original and Third Party Defendants, and the motion for new trial as to liability in each instance must be denied.

The verdict of the jury should be set aside as excessive only if so grossly excessive as to shock the conscience of the court, or if it clearly manifests that the verdict was a result of mistake, caprice, prejudice, or other improper motive, and not merely because the judge, had he tried the case without a jury, would have awarded less damages. Foresman v. Pepin, D.C., 71 F.Supp. 772, affirmed 3 Cir., 161 F.2d 872.

In determining whether or not the verdicts are excessive, it becomes necessary to consider the various items which each plaintiff was entitled to recover.

Claim of John Grobengieser —

(a) Bills, expenses and any expenditures made on behalf of his wife, Ethel Grobengieser, as a result of the accident.

(b) Loss of consortium.

(c) Value of automobile.

The special damages which John Grobengieser had as a result of the accident, construed in a light most favorable to him, aggregate $1,127.00. Since the verdict returned was $3,850.00, the amount of $2,723.00, by necessity, was returned for loss of consortium. The problem is, therefore, confined to the question as to whether or not the amount of $2,723.00 for the loss of consortium is such as to shock the conscience of the Court, or if there is substantial evidence to support said amount.

Consortium is a right growing out of the marital relationship, and comprises affection, companionship, love, fellowship, and the many acts, deeds and assistance which a wife renders to a husband to secure the success and happiness of a normal married relationship. Hewitt v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 228 Pa. 397, 77 A. 623.

The injuries suffered by Ethel Grobengieser resulted in considerable discomfort in many respects, which conditions in part continued at the time of trial. She was hospitalized for five days, suffered severe and frequent headaches for a certain period of time, had pain in the sacroiliac region, and was incapable of performing her normal household duties for a period of approximately six months. She remained under a doctor's attention for over a year, with a continuing experience of severe headaches with less regularity.

In view of the circumstances and construing the testimony in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, I do not believe that the amount awarded for loss of consortium was excessive.

Claim of Ethel Grobengieser —

(a) Pain and suffering, inconvenience, impairment of earning power, humiliation and mental suffering due to...