Court Opinion

ID: 9641264
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:27:03.908043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:36.225021
License: Public Domain

JACOBS, Judge
(dissenting).
This is an appeal from an order of the lower court refusing a new trial generally and granting a new trial on the issue of damages only to the minor plaintiffs, Jean and Mary Ann Stokan against the added defendant, Agnes Stokan. The majority holds that this order was improper both in the limitation of issues to that of damages, and in its failure to include the original defendant, James Turnbull, in the new trial. I believe that the order as framed by the trial judge was proper in both respects, and, therefore, respectfully dissent.
In reviewing the decision of the trial judge to limit the new trial to the issue of damages, it is of paramount im*449portance to keep in mind the fact that “[t]he exercise of the power to grant a new trial with respect to damages alone rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.” 28 P.L.E. New Trial, § 3 (1960). The case law is somewhat confusing in regards to the proper standard to be applied by the trial judge in determining whether or not liability was imposed with a sufficient degree of certainty in the first trial to warrant limitation of the new trial to the issue of damages. It appears that when a new trial is ordered due to an excessive verdict, the proper standard is whether liability was “fairly determined” in the first trial. Roncatti v. Smereczniak, 428 Pa. 7, 235 A.2d 345 (1967). On the other hand, a more strict standard is to be applied when an inadequate verdict is the basis for ordering a new trial, inasmuch as the inadequacy is sometimes considered to be evidence that a compromise verdict had been rendered. The test then becomes whether or not liability in the first trial was “uncontested,” or “clear” and “free from doubt.” See, e. g., Gagliano v. Ditzler, 437 Pa. 230, 263 A.2d 319 (1970).
Clearly, the issue of liability was contested during the first trial. The majority appears to say that this fact automatically requires a new trial on both the issues, liability and damages. To so hold would constitute an application of only part of the proper test, since, while liability may have been disputed, it may just as easily have been determined to be “clear” and “free from doubt” in view of the evidence presented at trial. I believe that in the interests of justice and judicial economy, the trial judge’s ruling upon whether or not the first trial resulted in such a determination must be accorded great weight.
We recently stated that in cases such as the one at bar, we should defer to the trial judge’s exercise of discretion to order a limited new trial, because of his “. superior opportunity to determine matters such as credibility, jury attentiveness, etc. . . .” Holmes v. Wa*450ters, 235 Pa.Super. 180, 182, 340 A.2d 474, 475 (1975). In that case however, the judge who ordered the limited new trial was not the trial judge,1 and our scope of review was thus broadened. In modifying the lower court’s order so as to include both the issues of liability and damages in the new trial, we stated: “Without the benefit of being able to observe the witnesses at trial, we believe that their testimony did not free the question of negligence from doubt. See also Gagliano v. Ditzler, 437 Pa. 230, 263 A.2d 319 (1970).” Id. at 184, 340 A.2d at 476 (emphasis added). The inescapable conclusion to be drawn from this statement is that, although liability was contested, the trial judge is in a unique position which enables him to determine that the jury’s decision, based on the evidence presented, was sufficiently certain to free the issue of liability from doubt.
The majority cites Mains v. Moore, 189 Pa.Super. 430, 150 A.2d 549 (1959), and Friedman v. Matovich, 191 Pa.Super. 275, 156 A.2d 608 (1959), for the general proposition that an inadequate verdict may give cause to suspect a compromise between the issues of liability and damages, and that in the event a compromise verdict is rendered, any new trial must be granted as to both of the issues. Assuming, arguendo, that an inadequate verdict is some evidence of compromise, I believe that the trial judge, who viewed the entire proceedings, is in a better position than we are to rule that evidence of liability was so “clear” and “free from doubt” as to overcome any inference of compromise. See Holmes v. Waters, supra.
While we have at times held that the trial judge abused his discretion by granting a new trial limited to damages, we have usually done so only when the likelihood of a compromise verdict is much stronger than in the case at bar. For example, in Mains v. Moore, supra, in addition to an inadequate verdict, there was funda*451mental error committed by the trial judge in the course of instructing the jury, which so tainted the verdict on liability that a general new trial was required. No such trial errors are alleged in the case now before us, consequently I cannot agree that the trial judge abused his discretion in determining that the jury verdict, while inconsistent as to the minor plaintiffs and their parents, was not the result of a compromise on the issues of liability and damage.
As the majority notes, in Amati v. Williams, 211 Pa.Super. 398, 236 A.2d 551 (1967), we faced a situation very similar to the case at bar. Rather than reviewing a lower court’s order for a limited new trial, however, we were reviewing the refusal of a new trial and took it upon ourselves to order a limited new trial. In that case, which also arose out of an automobile collision, a verdict had been returned against the additional defendant, awarding the parents of a minor plaintiff medical expenses, but denying any recovery to the minor plaintiff for pain and suffering. As in the case now before us, verdicts were returned in favor of the original defendant. In that case, under circumstances which I am unable to distinguish from those in the present case, we ordered a new trial limited to the issue of damages only, against the added defendant only. Obviously, we did not believe that the inconsistent verdict against the added defendant was sufficient indication that the jury had compromised the issues of damages and liability. I simply cannot agree that the trial judge in the present case, having had the added benefit of observing the entire trial, can be said to have abused his discretion by making the same ruling that we made in Amati v. Williams, supra. In view of the clear verdicts in favor of the defendant and against the additional defendant, I believe that the jury conclusively settled the issue of liability. Thus I would affirm the order limiting the new trial to the issue of damages.
*452In addition to ordering a general new trial against Agnes Stokan, the majority has declared that James Turnbull is to be included in that new trial. I must register my dissent to that portion of the majority opinion also.
James Turnbull, the original defendant in this case, was fully and unequivocably exonerated by the jury, and to require him to bear the burden and expense of a second trial is a serious injustice. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in limiting the new trial to one against Agnes Stokan, in fact, in my judgment, quite the contrary is true. Our Supreme Court has held that absent trial error which casts serious doubt on the jury verdict, when one defendant gets a favorable verdict, it may be an abuse of discretion to grant a new trial as to both defendants, merely because an inadequate verdict was returned aainst the losing defendant. Greco v. 7-Up Bottling Co. of Pgh., 401 Pa. 434, 165 A.2d 5 (1960); Sternberg v. Dixon, 411 Pa. 543, 192 A.2d 359 (1963).
Even if the new trial against Agnes Stokan is on both the issues of liability and damages, Turnbull should nevertheless be excluded. The fact that in such a situation, the jury could conceivably exonerate Agnes Stokan, thereby precluding any recovery whatsoever by the plaintiffs, is not a valid reason for depriving Turnbull of his favorable verdict. Fitzpatrick v. Sheppard, 346 Pa. 240, 29 A.2d 475 (1943). I would hasten to add that, contrary to the majority’s view, I fail to see why Turn-bull’s absence as a party defendant in the second trial would make it impossible to reconstruct the accident situation for the jury.
While the majority acknowledges the fact that Turn-bull “appears” to have been exonerated by the jury verdict, they seem to say that a verdict rendered by a jury of laymen is such a twisted and tangled mass that no single portion of the verdict can stand alone. I do not accept this argument, since I cannot conceive of any man*453ner in which the jury could have been more definitive in its decision concerning the liability of Turnbull. Not only did the jury return a favorable verdict for him as against the plaintiffs, they also made a positive award to Turnbull against the added defendant, for the amount of $966.10, representing damages to Turnbull’s car. I refer once again to Amati v. Williams, supra, where the original defendant received favorable verdicts identical to those Turnbull received in this case, and in which case we ordered a new trial against the additional defendant only, on the premise that the original defendant had been found to be free from liability.
Conceding, for the sake of argument, that the majority is correct in stating that the inconsistency of the verdicts against Agnes Stokan makes them somewhat suspect, I find no logical basis to conclude that the verdicts in favor of James Turnbull were in any way tainted by that inconsistency. Perhaps the inconsistency in that portion of the verdict can be attributed to sympathy, misunderstanding, or confusion as to what harm done was actually compensable. Whatever the reason for the inconsistent verdict, one thing is totally clear, as evidenced by the verdicts affecting James Turnbull, that being the jury’s conclusion that Turnbull was not liable for any of these damages, but was in fact an innocent party, himself entitled to compensation for damages to his automobile, caused by the added defendant, Agnes Stokan.
To deprive Turnbull of this definitive verdict, forcing him to undergo the entire process which has once before exonerated him, is, in my view, unjust.
I would affirm the lower court’s order of a new trial against Agnes Stokan alone, limited to the issue of damages.
HOFFMAN, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.

. The trial judge, the Honorable Francis X. McClanaghan, had passed away prior to ruling on the motions for new trial.