Case Name: Jody R. DAVIS, Appellant, v. Jeffrey D. MULLEN, Appellee
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2000-05-31
Citations: 755 A.2d 693
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jody R. DAVIS, Appellant, v. Jeffrey D. MULLEN, Appellee.
Judges: Before DEL SOLE, EAKIN and TODD, JJ.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 755
Pages: 693–694

Head Matter:
Jody R. DAVIS, Appellant, v. Jeffrey D. MULLEN, Appellee.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued Feb. 1, 2000.
Filed May 31, 2000.
Reargument Denied Aug. 9, 2000.
John J. Petrush, Beaver, for appellant.
Frank J. Micale, Warrendale, for appel-lee.
Before DEL SOLE, EAKIN and TODD, JJ.

Opinion:
DEL SOLE, J.:
¶ 1 Appellant filed suit against Appellee for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Appellee admitted liability. The jury awarded damages in the amount of $4,218.44. Appellant moved for the grant of a new trial. The trial court denied the motion. Appellant filed this timely appeal.
¶ 2 The accident occurred when Appellee fell asleep at the wheel, crossed the center line of a highway and struck Appellant's truck with his vehicle, causing Appellant's truck to travel up an embankment and turn over on its side. After the accident, Appellant was transported, via ambulance, to the hospital where he was examined, x-rayed and discharged with a prescription for a painkiller. Appellant testified that he was generally bruised and sore, he had a painful abrasion on his right thigh and his lower back and neck were painful.
¶3 Following the accident, Appellant treated with a chiropractor for several months for back and neck pain, as well as a numbness in his right leg. He underwent an MRI. He also treated with a neurologist recommended by his chiropractor for evaluation of a possible nerve entrapment. His medical expenses, including ambulance and hospital care the day of the accident, chiropractic treatment, neurological examination and the MRI totaled $3,901.00.
¶ 4 The accident also damaged personal property belonging to Appellant in the amount of $317.44. Thus, his medical expenses plus his personal property damages totaled $4,218.44, the exact amount of the damages awarded at trial. Clearly, the jury did not award Appellant any amount of damages for pain and suffering. This was the basis for Appellant's motion for a new trial.
¶ 5 "Whether a new trial should be granted on the grounds of inadequacy of damages is a matter within the trial court's discretion. The purpose of appellate review is to determine if the trial court abused its discretion." Dougherty v. McLaughlin, 432 Pa.Super. 129, 637 A.2d 1017, 1019 (1994)(citing Krivijanski v. Union R. Co., 357 Pa.Super. 196, 515 A.2d 933 (1986)).
¶ 6 In Dougherty, the plaintiff was awarded damages for hospital care he was given following an automobile accident. However, the jury awarded him no damages for pain and suffering. The trial court granted the plaintiffs motion for ad-ditur. On appeal, this Court found the additur improperly granted; however, we remanded for a new trial due to the inconsistent nature of the jury's award. The Dougherty court explained:
Tort victims must be compensated for all that they lose and all that they suffer. Boggavarapu v. Ponist, 518 Pa. 162, 542 A.2d 516 (1988). Where a jury awards a plaintiff his medical expenses, they make a finding that the expenses were related to the defendant's actions in injuring the plaintiff. Catalano v. Bujak, 148 Pa. Cmwlth. 269, 611 A.2d 314 (1992), alloc. granted, 534 Pa. 642, 626 A.2d 1159 (1993). However, by not awarding any pain and suffering, the jury also makes a finding that the plaintiff did not suffer as a result of his injuries and subsequent surgery. Id. Such findings are inherently inconsistent. Id.
Id., 637 A.2d at 1019-20.
¶ 7 We believe Dougherty controls the outcome of this case. Here, Appellant claimed he was injured in the accident in which his truck was overturned. The jury awarded him damages to compensate him for medical expenses stemming from his claimed injuries. However, their limited award indicated they did not find he suffered from these injuries. We find that conclusion insupportable. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment, and remand for a new trial.
¶ 8 Judgment vacated. Case remanded for new trial. Jurisdiction relinquished. ¶ 9 Judge EAKIN files a dissenting opinion.