Court Opinion

ID: 9732859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:40:18.457034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:43.574293
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
by Me. Justice Musmanno:
Dorothy C. Berkeihiser was injured when the car which she was driving came into a collision with a car being operated by Louis DiBartolomeo. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $38,920.64. The trial judge concluded that, considering the nature of the injuries, this amount was excessive to the extent that it shocked the court’s conscience and sense of justice. He thus ordered a new trial as to damages, explaining that he did this not only because of the immoderate verdict but because he failed to instruct the jury on reducing to present worth the amount the plaintiff was entitled to as a result of loss in future earning power.
The Majority Opinion has reversed this decision and ordered a new trial generally. I believe this is a mistake. The case was fairly and squarely tried on the question of liability and the plaintiff should not be subjected to additional expense, loss of time, tribulation and worry on an issue which, so far as due process of the law is concerned, is permanently inscribed on the stone walls of the courthouse.
The defendant in his brief has uttered some startling propositions which I believe should be replied to, out of fear that he and other lawyers may urge these statements as representing law. I refer to one particularly. He says that “In evaluating defendant’s testimony and comparing it with that of the plaintiff, the Court must be conscious of the fact that defendant has *164ño real interést in. the outcome of this litigation. A judgment against him would be met by his liability ih-surer.”
. This is ridiculous. argument. If accepted as legitimate and sensible it would endanger the. reliability, and. the impartiality of every trial where there, is insurañce coverage. Moreover, it is not true that the defendant' has no real interest in -the-outcome of the litigation even though his pocketbook may not be affected by an adverse verdict. To be found responsible for a.serious accident, even in a civil lawsuit, is not . something that, any motorist is happy about. Taking human nature as it-is, it is not improbable that, the defendant,, in case of any doubt in his .mind as. to just what happened, would .not be apt to give the benefit of the doubt to the opposing party.
Nor can it be said with the. finality of a cliff that a motorist, even with insurance coverage, can be carefree about financial responsibility. .Several.insurance companies have not been, modest about informing the public that an increase in insurance premiums is definitely possible if verdicts in automobile cases, become; too numerous or too..high. . The insured undoubtedly also has sewed, up in the inner lining of his .conscious-, ness .the feeling that if. he seems to fail to cooperate with- the insurance ..company he may find himself be-, ing compelled to.tug.open his own purse strings. ,
I would affirm the ordering of a new. trial- on the question of damages alone.