GLEN M. WILSON AND CLARA K. :
WILSON, individually, and :
as husband and wife, :
:
Plaintiffs :
:
v. :
NO. 1604 C.D. 91
:
R.J. BARRY a/k/a REGIS F. :
BARRY, :
:
Defendant :
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Wherry, J.
This matter comes before the court on plaintiffs' Motion for Post-Trial Relief. On July 15, 1994, the jury returned a verdict in this matter in the amount of $2,331.68. The jury specifically found that Clara Wilson's harm consisted of past medical expenses in the amount of $1,131.68 and future medical expenses of $1,200. The jury awarded no compensation for past loss of earnings, loss of future earning capacity, past pain and suffering, future pain and suffering, loss of the enjoyment of life, or loss of consortium. Plaintiffs assert that the jury's verdict was inadequate and therefore a new trial should be granted.
Defense expert, Dr. Vermeire testified that he believed that "the cause of her symptoms is a combination of the degenerative joint and disc disease, which was asymptomatic prior to her injury but her symptoms were precipitated or brought on by the accident, and as a result, she has continued to have symptoms since then." (Vermeire T1 p.17). Dr. Vermeire also testified that plaintiff exhibited mild tenderness and mild limitation of motion, but no muscle spasm (Vermeire T1 p.10). Also, he found her reflexes in her extremities to be normal and equal (Vermeire T1 p.11). He further testified that there was no present indication that Mrs. Wilson would need surgery (Vermeire T2 p.39).
Dr. Conti, Mrs. Wilson's treating physician, agreed that she had arthritis prior to the accident. Dr. Conti gave her manipulative therapy and diathermy (heat) and initially prescribed anti-inflammatory agents similar to Advil and Motrin. Dr. Conti testified that he believed that her condition was getting progressively worse requiring future medical care estimated to cost between $750 and $1,000 per year (Conti Tr p.101).
A jury verdict is set aside as inadequate when
it appears to have been the product of passion,
prejudice, partiality, or corruption, or where it
clearly appears from uncontradicted evidence that
the amount of the verdict bears no reasonable
relation to the loss suffered by the plaintiff.
Kiser v. Schulte, 538 Pa. 219, 225, 648 A.2d 1, 4 (1994).
A new trial is required when the jury's verdict is so contrary to the evidence that it shock's ones sense of justice. Id.
We do not find that the amount of the jury's verdict bears no reasonable relation to the loss suffered by the plaintiff based on the uncontradicted evidence. We also do not find that there was anything improper about the jury's deliberation that would warrant a new trial under the Kiser standard. Examining the evidence from trial in a light most favorable to the verdict winner, we find that the jury could have reasonably settled on the verdict they returned.
Hence this order:
ORDER
AND NOW, this 9th day of February, 1996, this court's February 5, 1996 order is amended to read as follows:
AND NOW, This 9th day of February, 1996, after hearing argument on Plaintiffs' Motion for Post Trial Relief, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that plaintiff's motion is DENIED. This court reserves the right to file a more complete opinion.
BY THE COURT:
______________________J.
Michael J. Wherry, Judge
gwb