Willenpart v. Otis Elevator Co., 151

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation269 Pa. 131,112 A. 135
PartiesWillenpart v. Otis Elevator Co., Appellant
Docket Number151
Decision Date31 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
7 practice notes
  • Sullivan v. Balt. & Ohio R. R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 3 Enero 1922
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 3 Enero 1922
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 9 Abril 1928
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 3 Enero 1922
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Sullivan v. Balt. & Ohio R. R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 3 Enero 1922
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 3 Enero 1922
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 9 Abril 1928
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 3 Enero 1922
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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