Court Opinion

ID: 9750600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 15:10:06.899003+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:13.843401
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell:
I dissent.
It is long and well established that a trial court possesses and has frequently exercised the inherent power to reduce a jury verdict by remittitur or in the alternative to grant a new trial. Bennett v. Biddle, 150 Pa. 420; Dornon v. McCarthy, 412 Pa. 595, 599, 195 A. 2d 520, and many cases cited therein. In such a situation the test in an appellate court is whether the trial court which saw and heard the witnesses—which *87an appellate court does not—committed in its order a manifest abuse of discretion or a clear error of law wMeb controlled the outcome of the case. Nicholson v. Garris, 418 Pa. 146, 210 A. 2d 164; Williams v. Philadelphia Transportation Company, 415 Pa. 370, 203 A. 2d 665.
A remittitur of a very substantial portion of the verdict is not unusual, and, where justified, it should stand. See Dornon v. McCarthy, 412 Pa., supra, where we affirmed an order which reduced the jury’s verdict from $30,000 to $13,000, and the numerous cases cited therein.
The appellants have not established that the trial court committed a manifest abuse of discretion or an error of law.