Perzak v. Coulter

• Decision Date: 17 July 1952
• Docket Number: 7610
• Parties: PERZAK v. COULTER et al. HAGER v. COULTER et al.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

90 A.2d 256

171 Pa.Super. 475

PERZAK v. COULTER et al.

HAGER v. COULTER et al.

No. 7610

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

July 17, 1952

Argued April 21, 1952.

Appeals, Nos. 50 and 51, April T., 1952, from judgments of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, April T., 1949 Nos. 2417 and 2416, in cases of Theodore Perzak v. H. Frank Coulter and P. G. Schomer and George E. Hager v. Same.

Actions of trespass for personal injuries and property damage. Before Adams, J.

Verdicts for plaintiff Perzak in sum of $ 2500., and for plaintiff Hager in the sum of $ 2000., and against defendants plaintiffs' motions for new trial refused and judgments entered on verdicts. Plaintiffs appealed.

John Wirtzman, for appellants.

Bruce R. Martin, with him Dalzell, Pringle, Bredin & Martin, for appellees.

Rhodes P. J., Hirt, Reno, Dithrich, Ross, Arnold and Gunther, JJ.

OPINION

GUNTHER, J.

Theodore Perzak and George E. Hager, appellants, instituted a trespass action against H. Frank Coulter, appellee, for personal injuries and property damage arising out of an automobile accident in the City of Pittsburgh. The jury returned a verdict for Perzak against appellee in the sum of $ 2,500 and for Hager in the sum of $ 2,000. The court below refused plaintiffs' motions for new trials wherein they complained of inadequacy of the verdicts.

The sole question in this appeal is the inadequacy of the verdicts. "The grant or refusal of a new trial for inadequacy of the verdict is a matter for the sound discretion of the trial court whose action will not be reversed on appeal except for a clear abuse of discretion such as where a new trial is refused when the verdict is so unreasonably low as to present a clear case of injustice": Takac v. Bamford, 370 Pa. 389, 395, 88 A.2d 86; ". . . or when there is a clear conviction, compelled by the evidence, that the jury must have been influenced by partiality, passion or prejudice, or by some misconception of the law or the evidence": Hammaker v. Watts Township, 71 Pa.Super. 554, 558. In the instant case, the record clearly disclosed that the verdicts were neither unreasonable nor influenced by partiality or misconception.

Perzak complains of his verdict, alleging that he clearly proved damages totaling $ 3,291. However, the record discloses that the jury could reasonably have calculated certain damages at a lower figure than that contended for, and in some instances may have completely disregarded certain asserted damages. For example, Perzak claimed forty days loss of earnings immediately following the accident, and fifty-three days loss of earnings at various and sundry intervals after his return to work. There is evidence from which the jury would have been warranted in concluding that the later loss of earnings did not proximately result from the injury received from this accident. Also, a future operation which Perzak requires according to medical testimony, could from the record be found to cost less than Perzak asserts. Perzak further alleged that he would lose a minimum of six weeks work during the course of the proposed operation. The evidence, however, shows that Perzak's medical witness, Dr. Ferraro, estimated a loss of from three to six weeks. Dr. Ferraro also testified that the operation...