Willenpart v. Otis Elevator Co., 151
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 269 Pa. 131,112 A. 135 |
| Parties | Willenpart v. Otis Elevator Co., Appellant |
| Docket Number | 151 |
| Decision Date | 31 December 1920 |
112 A. 135
269 Pa. 131
Willenpart
v.
Otis Elevator Co., Appellant
No. 151
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
December 31, 1920
Argued: October 15, 1920
Appeal, No. 151, Oct. T., 1920, by defendant, from order of C.P. Allegheny Co., July T., 1917, No. 1515, refusing new trial in case of F.J. Willenpart v. Otis Elevator Co. Affirmed.
Trespass for serious personal injuries sustained by expert electrician. Before BROWN, J.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $14,500.
Defendant moved for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was excessive. The court refused the motion. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned was above order, quoting record.
Judgment affirmed.
William S. Dalzell, of Dalzell, Fisher & Dalzell, for appellant.
Rody P. Marshall, with him Meredith R. Marshall, for appellee.
Before BROWN, C.J., MOSCHZISKER, FRAZER, WALLING and KEPHART, JJ.
OPINION
PER CURIAM
The appellant's sole assignment of error is that the court below erred in not setting aside the verdict on the ground of excessiveness. In the light of all the testimony that court was of opinion that the damages [269 Pa. 132] awarded to the plaintiff might have been more. The power of this court, conferred by the Act of 1891, to supervise the amount of a verdict, is, as we have repeatedly held, exceptional and to be exercised only in very clear cases. The question of the excessiveness of a verdict is always for the court below in the first instance, and, in the case before us, we have not been convinced of any abuse of judicial discretion in refusing to disturb the damages awarded to the plaintiff.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sullivan v. Balt. & Ohio R. R. Co.
...there is an abuse of discretion that a finding will be disturbed on appeal, on the grounds suggested: Willenpart v. Otis Elevator Co., 269 Pa. 131. Here, two trials were had, and in both instances Page 437 judge presiding found the evidence sufficient upon which to base a verdict. Under the......
-
Sullivan v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.
...there is an abuse of discretion that a finding will be disturbed on appeal, on the grounds suggested. Willenpart v. Otis Elevator Co., 269 Pa. 131, 112 Atl. 135. Here, two trials were had, and in both instances the judge presiding found the evidence sufficient upon which to base a verdict. ......
-
Novak v. Borough of Ford City
...of any abuse of judicial discretion in refusing to disturb the damages awarded to the plaintiff." Willenpart v. Otis Elevator Co., 269 Pa. 131, 132, 112 A. 135. The injuries here were serious, consisting mainly in the loss of the little finger of the left hand and the adjoining or ring......
-
Rankin v. Ward Baking Co., 23
...267 Pa. 298; Schoepp v. Gerety, 263 Pa. 538; McMonagle v. Simpers, 267 Pa. 117. The verdict was not excessive: Willenpart v. Elevator Co., 269 Pa. 131. Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ. OPINION [116 A. 59] [272 Pa. 110] MR. JUSTICE WALLING: This ac......
-
Sullivan v. Balt. & Ohio R. R. Co.
...there is an abuse of discretion that a finding will be disturbed on appeal, on the grounds suggested: Willenpart v. Otis Elevator Co., 269 Pa. 131. Here, two trials were had, and in both instances Page 437 judge presiding found the evidence sufficient upon which to base a verdict. Under the......
-
Sullivan v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.
...there is an abuse of discretion that a finding will be disturbed on appeal, on the grounds suggested. Willenpart v. Otis Elevator Co., 269 Pa. 131, 112 Atl. 135. Here, two trials were had, and in both instances the judge presiding found the evidence sufficient upon which to base a verdict. ......
-
Novak v. Borough of Ford City
...of any abuse of judicial discretion in refusing to disturb the damages awarded to the plaintiff." Willenpart v. Otis Elevator Co., 269 Pa. 131, 132, 112 A. 135. The injuries here were serious, consisting mainly in the loss of the little finger of the left hand and the adjoining or ring fing......
-
Rankin v. Ward Baking Co., 23
...267 Pa. 298; Schoepp v. Gerety, 263 Pa. 538; McMonagle v. Simpers, 267 Pa. 117. The verdict was not excessive: Willenpart v. Elevator Co., 269 Pa. 131. Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ. OPINION [116 A. 59] [272 Pa. 110] MR. JUSTICE WALLING: This ac......