Court Opinion

ID: 9746707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:34:14.659461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:42:33.439963
License: Public Domain

FLAHERTY, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
While I fully concur in the view that- Havens v. Tonner, 243 Pa.Super. 371, 365 A.2d 1271 (1976), should be unceremoniously eliminated from the law of this Commonwealth as unrealistic, I must dissent to the majority’s adoption of what it calls the “total offset method”, a “per se rule” of doubtful validity. True, such an approach is a simple one, but it does not achieve justice, and, has only been adopted in one jurisdiction, i.e., Alaska. We should simply permit expert testimony on the issues of inflation and productivity. Such testimony, on both sides of the issue, is, of course, subject to cross-examination and argument as to its validity and weight. Thus, the jury is free to weigh the evidence before it and render its verdict. This is also simple, and provides justice in accordance with our time honored principles.