 |
When Are Injuries Non-Compensable?Four recent Pennsylvania Superior Court cases decided in 2003 cast considerable light on a damage issue which has plagued lawyers and clients alike for years.A plaintiff is injured in an auto accident and files suit. The jury finds the other driver negligent, but awards "zero damages:" How can that be? Customarily, on motion for a new trial or on appeal, the court can award a new trial. But here's where the matter gets tricky. A jury has already found the defendant driver liable, so why should plaintiff be forced to prove liability all over again? It has become well settled that liability and proof of damages can be separated and courts can order a new trial limited to damages. That introduces the next problem: What damages are to be determined? In finding "zero damages," was the jury saying they did not credit plaintiffs medical testimony? Did they believe the defendant's doctors instead? Did they believe the injuries insignificant or "transient rub of life" for which no compensation is awarded? A look at how the courts responded in those four recent cases is helpful. Liability was either admitted by defendant or clearly found against defendant by the jury. When the jury returned a "zero damage" award, the Courts on review awarded a new trial, stating the result "shocked the conscience of the Court:" But the new trial was limited to fixing damages only. They further found a way to sort out the injuries which could be considered on retrial. In a typical case, a plaintiff had claimed a soft tissue neck injury as well as rib and hip injuries. His physician witnesses confirmed these injuries and tied them to the accident. The defendant's medical expert conceded the soft tissue neck injury (and causation by the accident), but ascribed the hip problem to pre-existing arthritis and the rib injury to a casual or "transient rub of life" injury of only one week's duration. The Courts permitted consideration on retrial of only the injury agreed upon by medical authority for both parties, such as the soft tissue neck injury, and on retrial, a jury could fix damages for only that injury. In the trial process, the jury must work within the provisions of the law and the instructions of the judge. Where a verdict is unclear or manifestly unfair, the "system" provides adequate provision for correcting mistakes, as in the case of "zero damages" where liability is clear and at least some element of loss or damage is admitted. |
 |
|
|
Home ·
About the Firm ·
Attorney Directory ·
Practice Areas ·
News and Events ·
Contact Us · © 2006 Peacock Keller & Ecker, LLP, 70 East Beau Street, Washington, PA 15301 · Phone: (724) 222-4520 or in PA: 1-800-242-8897 · Fax: (724) 222-3318 · Terms and Conditions |
|