Case Name: Harrison v. Goldstein, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1927-11-21
Citations: 91 Pa. Super. 538
Docket Number: Appeal No. 70
Parties: Harrison v. Goldstein, Appellant.
Judges: Before Porter, P. J., Henderson, Trexleb, Keller, Linn, Gawthbop and Cunningham, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 91
Pages: 538–540

Head Matter:
Harrison v. Goldstein, Appellant.
Argued October 7,1927.
Before Porter, P. J., Henderson, Trexleb, Keller, Linn, Gawthbop and Cunningham, JJ.
Harry L. Aooelroth, and with him Aooelroth and Porteous, for appellant,
cited: Grossman v. R. R. Co., 289 Pa. 171; Class & Nachod Brewing Company v. Giacobello, 277 Pa. 530; Cleveland Worsted Mills Co. v. Myers-Jolesch Co., Inc., 266 Pa. 309; March v. Philadelphia and West Chester Traction Company, 285 Pa. 413; Woodward v. Traction Co., 17 Pa. Superior Ct. 576; Donoghue v. Traction Co., 17 Pa. Superior Ct. 582.
W. Logan MacGoy, of MacGoy, Evans, Hutchinson and Lewis, for appellee,
cited: Babbitt v. Jackson, 279 Pa. 480; Klekotka v. Chalfant, 82 Pa. Superior Ct. 159; Palmer v. Publishing Company, 7 Pa. Superior Ct. 594; Gail v. Philadelphia, 273 Pa. 275.
November 21, 1927:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
This is an action of trespass for personal injuries. The trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of one thousand dollars. The evidence was conflicting as to the right of the plaintiff to recover anything, but it indicated that the injuries of the plaintiff were of a serious character. The plaintiff made a motion for a new trial, upon the ground that the verdict ivas inadequate. The learned judge who tried the case was of opinion that if the plaintiff was entitled to recover anything the damages awarded by the jury were inadequate and granted a new trial, which action is the foundation of the only assignment of error by the defendant.
The decision of the question presented was one in which the court below was vested with discretion. The question whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover was one for the jury and the verdict must be accepted as determining that the injuries of the plaintiff were the result of negligence for which the defendant was answerable. The learned judge had the witnesses before him, he saw the plaintiff, heard the testimony as to the character of his injuries, and was in much better position than we possibly #can be to determine ivhether the verdict was adequate compensation to the plaintiff for his injuries, in case he was entitled to recover anything. In such a case the decision of the court below is only to be reversed in case of a manifest abuse of discretion. We are not in this case convinced that the decision of the court below involved an abuse of discretion.
The order of the court granting a new trial is affirmed and the appeal dismissed.