Court Opinion

ID: 9751241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:15:53.399389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:40.409564
License: Public Domain

Opinion by
Mr. Justice Arnold,
The sole contention of the appellant here is that the verdict, reduced by the lower court to $15,000, is excessive.
The plaintiff, John Nossokoff, fell on a broken pavement and suffered a comminuted fracture of the left wrist involving the distal end of the radius, with a posterior tilting of the angle of the wrist. The injury necessitated immediate surgery and immobilization of the entire arm in a cast for three months. The plaintiff, who is a violinist, has lost the professional use of his left arm. He lacks 10° dorsal flexion, 15° normal palmar flexion, and has 15° loss of motion in turning his wrist laterally toward the ulnar side. He is incapable of playing the violin.
He sustained other injuries. His face was cut and bruised, his nose was flattened, his right knee cut, and he lost all his teeth.
Five days a week the plaintiff was employed as a health inspector for the city of Pittsburgh. He devoted his evenings and week-ends to playing the violin in orchestras, performing at recitals and private concerts, and in giving instruction on that instrument. He has continued his regular employment and receives his pre-accident salary.
Prior to the accident he earned at the Nixon theatre $90.00 per week when he played for musicals and $60.00 per week when dramatic plays were being produced. The earnings at the Nixon theatre averaged $2,400.00 a year. His medical expenses amounted to $1,113.00. He has lost in actual money damages some $10,248.00, which would leave less than $5,000.00 for pain and suffering and impairment of his earning *424power. He is 63 years of age. Tlie revenue lost from his musical profession would more than make up the difference between $10,248.00 and the amount of the reduced verdict.
In any event the amount of the verdict is more than justified by the record.
Some question was raised by the plaintiff at the trial, and denied by the City of Pittsburgh, that he was entitled to damages for loss of solace caused by inability to use the violin, and this in addition to the usual compensatory damages sustained by him. When this case was argued the proposition was merely affirmed by one side and denied by the other. It was not set forth as an item of damages in the complaint nor referred to by the lower court. We are unwilling to determine that question in the absence of argument or the citation of any authorities. It would be a dictum unnecessary and inexpedient to pronounce.
Judgment affirmed.