Case ID: pa_269/html/0131-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Willenpart v. Otis Elevator Co., Appellant.
    
      Appeals — New trial — Excessiveness of verdict — Discretion of court — Act of May W, 1891, P. L. 101.
    
    Tbe excessiveness of a verdict as a ground for a new trial, is always for tbe court below in tbe first instance, and the appellate court will only reverse tbe exercise of tbe discretion of that court in exceptional and very clear eases, under tbe Act of May 20, 1891, P. L. 101.
    Argued October 15, 1920.
    December 31, 1920:
    Appeal, No. 151, Oct. T., 1920, by defendant, from order of O. P. Allegheny Co., July T., 1917, No. 1515, refusing new trial- in case of F. J. Willenpart v. Otis Elevator Co.
    Before Brown, C. J., Moschziskbr, Frazer, Walling and Kephart, JJ.
    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.
    
      William S. Dalzell, of Dalzell, Fisher & Dalzell, for appellant.
    
      Rody P. Marshall, with him Meredith R. Marshall, for appellee.
   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 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 tó 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.