Case Title: Reimer v. Tien

Citation: 356 Pa. Super. 192, 514 A.2d 566

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 1986-08-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
356 Pa. Superior Ct. 192 (1986) 514 A.2d 566 Marie REIMER, Appellant, v. Paul S. TIEN, Ind. and in the Capacity as President of the American University of the Caribbean, and American University of the Caribbean, Appellees. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued June 24, 1986. Filed August 20, 1986. *195 Catherine Miraglia-Lecky, Norristown, for appellant. Olena S. Hendler, Jenkintown, for appellees. Before OLSZEWSKI, HOFFMAN and ROBERTS, JJ. OLSZEWSKI, Judge: This appeal comes to us as the result of the judgment of the trial court granting a compulsory non-suit, on all counts, as to appellee Paul S. Tien ("Tien"), a directed verdict as to appellee American University of the Caribbean ("AUC") on three counts, and from the jury award of $3,500 against appellee AUC. *196 The pertinent facts are as follows. After reading an advertisement in a local paper, appellant contacted AUC for information regarding its medical program. At the appropriate time she applied for admission and was subsequently accepted. In conjunction with this, she paid all applicable fee requirements. In addition, she paid her tuition and room fee. Through this time, appellant continued contact with appellee AUC's Miami office, frequently to gain additional information. In September, appellant traveled to Montserrat to begin medical school. She remained only eleven days. During this time, she found the conditions most dissatisfying. Many of her experiences became the basis of her complaint. She then left. After arriving home, appellant made several attempts to contact the school to receive her refund. These attempts proved fruitless. As a result, a lawsuit was filed. At this time, AUC stipulated that appellant was due $2,200 in refunds. Appellees were granted a compulsory non-suit in favor of appellee Tien and a directed verdict on counts II, III, and IV at the close of appellant's case. The jury was allowed to deliberate only as to count I, breach of contract. A verdict was entered in appellant's favor for $3,500. Post-trial motions were filed and later denied. This appeal followed. We now begin with appellant's contention that the trial court improperly granted a compulsory non-suit as to appellee Tien. In West Mountain Poultry Co. v. Gress, 309 Pa.Super. 361, 455 A.2d 651 (1982), the standard for a compulsory non-suit was enunciated. After a conscientious review of the record, we are compelled to agree with the trial court's decision. Appellant clearly did not make out a cause of action against appellee Tien. The worst that can be said about Tien was that he was not available to speak with appellant when she so desired and was remiss in answering her letters. This lack of communication does not amount to breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress or negligent infliction of emotional distress. Indeed, appellant admitted on cross-examination that Tien did not personally harass her, verbally abuse her, nor physically attack her. (R.R. 223a). In light of the evidence produced, compulsory non-suit was properly granted according to existing law. Appellant next argues that the trial court improperly granted a directed verdict on count II, fraudulent misrepresentation; count III, intentional infliction of emotional distress; and count IV, negligent infliction of emotional distress. *198 Although the law to be applied is identical in each count, we shall deal with each charge separately. Krupa by Krupa v. Williams, 316 Pa.Super. 408, 463 A.2d 429 (1983). Shane v. Hoffman, 227 Pa.Super. 176, 324 A.2d 532 (1974). In suing for fraudulent misrepresentations, appellant alleged that appellees knowingly misrepresented to her that *199 drugs were not a problem when the truth was that drugs and alcohol were openly pushed; that the school had high standards when the truth was that it allowed her to be harassed and security was lax; that student orientation would be September 14 when it was held September 16 instead; that she would be given a single room; and that class size was approximately thirty students yet while knowing that most classes contained two hundred students. We have studiously reviewed each of these allegations and find them meritless. The directed verdict, then, must stand. Appellant presented no evidence to substantiate her drug and alcohol claim. Not only did she not prove that drugs and alcohol were rampant and openly used, but she did not prove scienter on appellee's part nor reliance and damage on her part. Next, a two-day delay in student orientation is not a false representation of a material fact and clearly is not a fact relied on when picking a school. In addition, we can ascertain no damage to appellant. Since appellant received the single room, albeit with some difficulty, represented as available, she cannot use it as the basis for misrepresentation. Last is the "misrepresentation" as to class size. Testimony revealed that this was a misunderstanding, lab classes contained approximately thirty students while lectures were closer to two hundred. (R.R. 381-382.). Since appellant received brochures of the school and she noted that the classrooms "showed a lot of chairs, like an instruction room," even if she had been told that class size was thirty students, she should have realized the discrepancy. It is not enough for fraudulent misrepresentation. According to the Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 46 (1965), liability for this tort is allowed against "one who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another. . . ." It is clear that the crucial element is extreme and outrageous *200 conduct. Dawson v. Zayre Dept. Stores, 346 Pa.Super. 357, 499 A.2d 648 (1985); Jones v. Nissenbaum Rudolph & Seidner, 244 Pa.Super. 377, 368 A.2d 770 (1976). Further, it is for the court to determine, in the first instance, whether the actor's conduct can reasonably be regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery. Dawson, supra; Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 46, comment (h) (1965). Conduct which does not meet the requisites for liability is described in comment (d) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 46: The conduct recited in appellant's complaint does not meet the burden of extreme and outrageous. Banging on her room door and being given pornography are surely annoying and possibly even insulting, but annoying and insulting are not extreme and outrageous. A large class may be inconvenient, but inconvenient is not extreme and outrageous. Absent a showing of extreme and outrageous conduct, the directed verdict will be affirmed. The Restatement (Second) Torts, Sec. 436 provides: Restatement (Second) Torts, Sec. 436A states: Banyas v. Lower Bucks Hospital, 293 Pa.Super. 122, 437 A.2d 1236 (1981); see also, Sinn v. Burd, 486 Pa. 146, 404 A.2d 672 (1979). The facts set out by appellant do not suffice to uphold a cause of action in this instance. Appellant's list of grievances which make up count IV does not amount to a violation of any duties on the part of appellees. In addition, *202 appellant did not sufficiently prove bodily injury as a result of any negligence by appellees. Without this proof, we are compelled to sustain the directed verdict. Sinn, supra; Banyas, supra; see also, Cathcart v. Keene Industrial Association, 324 Pa.Super. 123, 471 A.2d 493 (1984). Our third point of review concerns the actions of the judge during the trial. Appellant alleges that the judge made improper remarks, was biased in appellees' behalf and "cross-examined" appellant's witnesses. It is further alleged, as proof of the judge's prejudice against appellant, that he overruled only 14% of appellees' objections but 70% of appellant's objections. Because of this, appellant asserts she is entitled to a new trial. With respect to the judge's "cross-examination" of appellant's witnesses, we find no error. A reading of the trial transcript reveals that the judge's questions were not biased or prejudicial but were intended to clarify points and gain additional information for the jury. A multitude of cases have held that questions by the judge are entirely proper. See, Commonwealth v. Hammer, 508 Pa. 88, 494 A.2d 1054 (1985); Potochnik v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., 379 Pa. 154, 108 A.2d 733 (1954); Pratt v. Stein, 298 Pa.Super. 92, 444 A.2d 674 (1982); Commonwealth v. Folino, 293 Pa.Super. 347, 439 A.2d 145 (1981); Commonwealth v. Hodge, 246 Pa.Super. 71, 369 A.2d 815 (1977); Commonwealth v. McMillion, 215 Pa.Super. 306, 265 A.2d 375 (1969). Appellant cites many instances of improper remarks by the judge. A careful review of the trial transcript shows that these comments, taken in context, do not amount to bias and prejudice. We therefore decline appellant's requested remedy and affirm the lower court. Appellant's next issue alleges improper evidentiary rulings by the trial judge in the areas of hearsay and relevance which resulted in prejudice to Marie Reimer.[1] Our Court recently set forth the basic rules of hearsay in Spotts v. Reidell, 345 Pa.Super. 37, 497 A.2d 630 (1985). The complained-of statements excluded on the grounds of hearsay primarily concerned remarks made to appellant by other people at AUC. It was argued then, as now, that these remarks were not offered as the truth but only to show that they were made. We cannot agree. Appellant's claim against appellee AUC pertained in part to the conditions and action of AUC and its students. Many of the statements excluded directly related to this issue. Thus, comments made to appellant about drugs on campus and remarks pertaining to other students were offered to prove that appellant's claims were true. The testimony was *204 therefore offered to be the truth and was properly excluded by the trial judge. Whistler Sportswear, Inc. v. Rullo, 289 Pa.Super. 230, 433 A.2d 40 (1981). Martin v. Soblotney, 502 Pa. 418, 466 A.2d 1022 (1983); See Gregg v. Fisher, 377 Pa. 445, 105 A.2d 105 (1954). Whistler Sportswear, Inc., supra. In addition, Lewis v. Mellor, 259 Pa.Super. 509, 393 A.2d 941 (1978) states: Appellant's first complaint in this relevancy issue is that the court should have allowed evidence relating to attorney's fees in her attempt to collect the tuition refund. Since it was admitted by appellees that appellant was entitled to a refund, appellant argues that attorney fees were compensatory, incidental and/or consequential damages. We do not agree that the evidence regarding attorney fees was probative to any material issue. Additionally, appellant was not entitled to attorney fees. See Becker, et ux. v. Borough of Schuylkill Haven, 200 Pa.Super. 305, 189 A.2d 764; 42 Pa.C.S.A. Sec. 2503. Therefore, the testimony was properly excluded as irrelevant. Next, we discuss appellant's contentions that certain evidence which was admitted was irrelevant and such evidence was thus prejudicial. Specifically, appellant cites the evidence relating to Howard Lantner, a student list, and the testimony of Patricia Litwin regarding laboratory class size and water temperature at AUC. Again, we find the judge's ruling on relevancy was entirely proper. With respect to the testimony of Patricia Litwin, we note that a portion of appellant's claim for breach of contract dealt with a too large class and unsuitable hot water. Since appellant introduced testimony as to what Ms. Litwin told her about the class size and water temperature, appellees were proper in questioning Ms. Litwin on these same issues. Appellant's testimony as to class size also allowed appellees to introduce a class list. The time of the compilation of the list was fully explored and would go to weight, not relevance. Furthermore, appellant charged that Howard Lantner was a student at AUC and participated in the harassment *206 about which she now complains. The evidence offered[2] was relevant not only to undermine appellant's assessment and credibility of Howard Lantner but also to show the quality of the school was not as she described. This reasoning was expressed by the trial court in conjunction with its overruling appellant's objections and will not be overturned at this point. We find no abuse in the judge's decision. We now address appellant's contention that the trial court's jury instructions were erroneous, misleading, confusing and prejudicial. This issue is three-pronged: appellant's charges which were refused; appellees' charges which were accepted; and instructions by the trial judge. For the following reasons, we decline to find error. Riddle Memorial Hospital v. Dohan, 504 Pa. 571, 475 A.2d 1314 (1984); McCay v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 447 Pa. 490, 291 A.2d 759 (1972); Vanic v. Ragni, 435 Pa. 26, 254 A.2d 618 (1969). Reilly by Reilly v. Southeastern Pa. Transp., 507 Pa. 204, 489 A.2d 1291 (1985); Hrivnak v. Perrone, 472 Pa. 348, 372 A.2d 730 (1977); McCay v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 447 *207 Pa. 490, 291 A.2d 759 (1972); Incollingo v. Ewing, 444 Pa. 263, 282 A.2d 206 (1971); Whitner v. Lojeski, 437 Pa. 448, 263 A.2d 889 (1970). Furthermore, "(a) judgment is seldom reversed for error in the charge unless that error is the inclusion of `incorrect and misleading statements as to a material fact,'" Whistler Sportswear, Inc., supra. With this in mind, we turn to appellant's specific complaints. The judge first refused appellant's charge pertaining to incidental costs, which she believed she was entitled to recover. These included the costs of transportation to and from Mexico to learn Spanish, the cost to learn Spanish, and additional costs of living in Mexico. Connected to this was the modification of another damage instruction limiting recovery to $6,660. On these issues, the judge instructed the jury as follows: As the judge noted, appellant requested $6,660 in damages in her complaint. The complaint did not allege the incidental costs she now wants. To recover costs for a breach of contract, compensation is given only for those injuries that are a direct and forseeable result of the breach. See The Dimitros Chandris, 43 F. Supp. 829 (1942); Emerman v. Baldwin, 186 Pa.Super. 561, 142 A.2d 440 (1958). See also, Subcommittee Note to Proposed Jury Instructions, 6.01K Incidental Costs (1973). The damages appellant requested, and were rejected in the instruction, do not fall within this category. As set out, the judge's instructions sufficiently apprise the jury of their duty as to the measure of the damages. Appellant also objects to the acceptance of appellees' charge that reads: *209 It is asserted that this is not an accurate statement of the law and was waived by appellees since it was not raised as a defense. We do not agree with appellant. Appellant cannot claim a breach of contract based on statements in a brochure unless such statements were a material misrepresentation. See Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corp., 462 Pa. 83, 337 A.2d 893 (1975). Misrepresentation must be distinguished from mere "puffing." Berkebile, etc., supra. An instruction to this effect was proper. Lastly, appellant cites numerous excerpts from the judge's instructions and claims they are inaccurate and/or misleading, confusing, and prejudicial. We have carefully reviewed the entire jury charge and fail to find support for appellant's averments. The charge as a whole does not demonstrate prejudice. We therefore will not reverse. We now come to appellant's last allegation of error, that the verdict was against the law, the evidence and the weight of the evidence. It is submitted that since the jury returned a verdict in excess of the amount admittedly owed ($2,200), they had determined that appellees had breached the contract and therefore should have returned a verdict for the entire amount of the loss, $6,660. The law surrounding this issue is well-settled and was comprehensively set out by this Court in Deitrick v. Karnes, 329 Pa.Super. 372, 478 A.2d 835 (1984). Mere disparity between the amount of the verdict and out-of-pocket expenses is not in itself sufficient grounds to disturb a verdict. Kravinsky v. Glover, 263 Pa.Super. 8, 396 A.2d 1349 (1979). A meticulous inspection of the evidence requires us to deny appellant's request. The jury award reflects their determinations as to credibility and worth of testimony. We deem it entirely proper that the award shows that the jury chose to reject the majority of appellant's claims. In admitting appellant to its school, appellees contracted to provide a medical education, as well as certain necessities that could be expected at any learning institution. The record is replete with facts that negate appellant's contention that appellees breached this contract. To begin, there was evidence of the quality of education, two of appellant's friends during her brief time at AUC have become successfully placed. All the basic courses were taught; although appellant complains that one professor taught two courses, she offers no proof that any of the professors were unqualified. This is hardly a breach of contract. Dealing directly with the quality of education, appellant complained about cancelling and rescheduling classes. She alleged that the first five days were disorganized. This looks to be appellant's most substantive argument. A closer look discloses it to be meritless. Orientation was postponed for two days due to the difficulty approximately one-third of the students had in arriving. Appellant admitted this (R.R. 112a). Appellant also testified that some of the classes were held and roll was established. (R.R. 114a). In addition, many of the classes were rescheduled. (R.R. 417a). Appellant's testimony concerning lack of seating, audio, and visual problems in the classrooms was extensively refuted. Testimony disclosed the use of microphones, *212 the length of the blackboards, the number of seats and that the rooms were built so that there were no visual obstructions. (R.R. 412). Appellant was also provided with the single room for which she contracted. She cannot, then, cite this as an instance of a breach. Hot water is the next allegation of a breach. While it would appear that hot water would be a part of the contract (as part of the living arrangements), it is not enough to be considered a breach. Testimony indicated that there was water that was hot enough for normal use, it just was not hot enough for appellant's use. Much of appellant's complaints centered on the fact that she was harassed by other students and the security at the school was subpar. She makes reference to people pushing their way into her room and calling to her from below her window. The testimony belies these complaints. It is obvious that many of the instances were attempts by the others to be friendly. (See, R.R. 118a-120a; 129a-1341a). Her complaints about the guards were refuted by a witness appellant thought of as her friend at AUC. This testimony contradicted many of appellant complaints concerning drugs, harassment and lack of security. (R.R. 421-422; 424-426). We are of the opinion that the jury award accurately reflects the testimony. Clearly, the jury executed its duties in assessing the worth and credibility of the witness. There is no glaring discrepancy between the testimony and verdict. We hesitate to invade the province of the jury in this situation. As such, we will uphold the verdict as being in line with the evidence and decline to award appellant a new trial. Judgment affirmed. [1] Appellant's brief also refers the Court to other miscellaneous evidentiary rulings that are allegedly erroneous. We have read the transcript and the pages cited by appellant and find no error. We decline to discuss each of these rulings individually as appellant did not do so herself. [2] The evidence offered was part of Howard Lantner's AUC records consisting of letters from Howard Lantner and Hahnemann Medical School to AUC. [3] It appears that these words were inserted by the judge.