Case Name: Ehrlich et al., Appellants, v. Stiefel
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1928-11-21
Citations: 94 Pa. Super. 406
Docket Number: Appeals Nos. 201, 202 and 203
Parties: Ehrlich et al., Appellants, v. Stiefel.
Judges: Before Porter, P. J., Henderson, Trexle®, Keller, Linn, Gawthrop and Cunningham, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 94
Pages: 406–409

Head Matter:
Ehrlich et al., Appellants, v. Stiefel.
Argued October 10, 1928.
November 21, 1928:
Before Porter, P. J., Henderson, Trexle®, Keller, Linn, Gawthrop and Cunningham, JJ.
. James F. Masterson, for appellants.
H. Book Goshorn, and with him Frank B. Ambler and Harry 8. Ambler, Jr., for appellee.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Keller, J.,
The'se three actions in trespass were tried together. They grew out of the same accident. Verdicts were rendered in favor of the defendant as to all three minor plaintiffs, hut against him, as to theij respective parents, for the moneys expended hy them in connection with their children's injuries. The defendant made no objection to these anomalous verdicts, hut paid the judgments entered on them in favor of the parents and had them marked 'satisfied.'
The several minor plaintiffs then moved the lower court to grant them a new trial because of the apparently inconsistent verdicts aforesaid, which the court, after consideration, refused. These appeals are based solely on that action.
We are unable to find any abuse of discretion in the lower court in discharging the rules.
The court, which heard the evidence, was evidently satisfied that the verdict's of the jury absolving the defendant of negligence in the accident which resulted in injury to the plaintiffs were not against the evidence or the weight of the evidence received on the trial, nor capricious or unreasonable in the light of the testimony. Appellants, in their argument, do not claim other-wise. That the jury, perhaps from a feeling of sympathy, found for the adult plaintiffs in a sum sufficient to reimburse them for their actual outlay might have been objected to by the defendant, but it furnished no ground for exception by the plaintiffs.
The Act of May 12, 1897, P. L. 62, which directed the consolidation into one suit of actions brought by a parent and a child respectively for personal injuries to the child, not resulting in death, did not merge the two rights of action into one, but affected only the mode or manner of suit. The rights of action remained distinct, with separate verdicts and judgments. See Hug v. Hall, 79 Pa. Superior Ct. 392, 396. Hence the apparent inconsistency between these separate verdicts on the several rights of action did not invalidate the verdicts after the Act of 1897 any more than before. There was no inconsistency in the verdict, as respects the right of action of each minor plaintiff, considered by itself. The incongruity only appears when considered in connection with a different, though related right of action. See Betts v. Y. M. C. A., 88 Pa. Superior Ct. 568. That is the distinction between these cases and those relied upon by the appellant.
The judgments are affirmed.
No. 201, October Term 1928 — Judgment affirmed.
No. 202, October Term 1928 — Judgment affirmed.
No. 203, October Term 1928 — Judgment affirmed.