Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-8018 CivilTOMALYN PETERSON and THOMAS PETERSON, her husband, Plaintiffs VS. MICHAEL SHREINER, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 00-8018 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS FOR POST-TRIAL RELIEF BEFORE HESS, J. OPINION AND ORDER On January 4, 1999, the plaintiff, Tomalyn Peterson, was involved in a motor vehicle accident when the defendant, Michael Shreiner, pulled his vehicle out from a stop sign and struck the Peterson vehicle on the driver's side. According to Mrs. Peterson, the force of the impact caused her to strike certain parts of the car even though she had on her seat belt. She reported no injury at the scene of the accident. Her condition, however, deteriorated steadily during the day. She began to get pains in her shoulder, her neck and her right leg. She could not sleep that night because of the pain. The next morning she went to a walk-in clinic and received painkillers and muscle relaxers. At the time of the accident, Mrs. Peterson had a baking business. Following the accident, the pain began to interfere with her baking endeavors and she began physical therapy. Mrs. Peterson testified that she no longer enjoys her formerly active lifestyle. In fact, she contends that she was eventually forced to give up her baking business. This matter was tried before a jury on November 5 and 6, 2001. The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant negligent but finding, also, that the negligence was not a substantial 00-8018 CIVIL factor in bringing about harm to the plaintiff. The motion sub judice requests a new trial and contends that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence. When a trial judge rules on a motion for a new trial, it is his duty to review the entire record; he is free to weigh the evidence for himself in order to determine whether the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or whether the judicial process has affected a serious injustice. Hilbert v. Katz, 309 Pa. Super. 466, 470, 455 A.2d 704, 706 (1983). The duty of the trial judge when deciding whether a jury verdict warrants a new trial, in whole or in part, is to determine whether the preponderance of the evidence opposes the verdict. Craft v. Hetherly, 700 A.2d 520, 522 (Pa. Super. 1997). A new trial should be granted only where the verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice, and not where the evidence is conflicting or where the trial judge would have reached a different conclusion on the same facts. Davis v. Mullen, 773 A.2d 764, 766 (Pa. 2001). In Green v. Johnson, 424 Pa. 296, 227 A.2d 644 (1967), Justice Musmanno explained the circumstances where the grant of a new trial is proper: When a jury' s finding is so opposed to demonstrated facts that, looking at the verdict, the mind stands baffled, the intellect searches in vain for cause and effect, and reason rebels against a bizarre and erratic conclusion, it can be said that the verdict is shocking and unjust, and that a new trial is imperative. Id. at 298, 227 A.2d at 645. It is within the province of the jury to assess the worth of testimony, which it may then accept or reject. Neison v. Hines, 539 Pa. 516, 520, 653 A.2d 634, 636 (1995). The jury is free to believe all, some, or none of the testimony presented by a witness. Id. at 520, 653 A.2d at 2 00-8018 CIVIL 637. Furthermore, while it is true that the jury does not have to accept as true even uncontradicted evidence, it is also true that, where a jury verdict goes against overwhelming, uncontradicted testimony, the court may set aside the verdict as being clearly against the weight of the evidence. See Macina v. McAdams, 280 Pa. Super. 115,421 A.2d 432 (1980). In the present case, Dr. Matthews, an orthopedic surgeon, was the only medical expert to testify. Dr. Matthews testified, as a result of the January 4, 1999 car accident, that Tomalyn Peterson suffered soft tissue spinal injuries and an annular tear. Dr. Matthews testified that this type of injury was consistent with the accident that Tomalyn Peterson was involved in on January 4, 1999. Furthermore, he testified that Tomalyn Peterson's prolonged pain and suffering was a direct result of this annular tear. Dr. Matthews also testified that he noticed spinal narrowing on the radiological studies that were taken after the accident in 1999. He explained that the spinal narrowing is a degenerative condition and, as a result of the accident, this condition was accelerated. The defense did not introduce any medical evidence at trial, choosing to rely instead on its cross- examinations of plaintiffs' witness. Defense counsel attempted to discredit Dr. Matthews by offering a couple of alternative suggestions for Tomalyn Peterson's neck and spinal injuries. First, defense counsel attempted to attribute Tomalyn Peterson's injuries to a prior car accident. However, Dr. Matthews refuted this suggestion and stated that Tomalyn Peterson was completely healed from her injuries prior to the accident on January 4, 1999. Dr. Matthews explained that she suffered a torn muscle in the prior accident because the injury healed within six weeks and she did not miss time from work. 00-8018 CIVIL Second, defense counsel attempted to have Dr. Matthews concede that the degenerative disc disease and the symptoms from which Tomalyn Peterson complains, can occur in a person in absence of trauma. While conceding that this condition can result absent trauma, Dr. Matthews further testified that in Tomalyn Peterson's case, this could not happen absent trauma. Dr. Matthews explained that if she were fifty-five or older she may have some of these symptoms but she is forty-one years old and, therefore, the projection is different. The only issue upon which the defense offered testimony, other than the defendant' s version of how the accident occurred, had to do with Ms. Peterson' s allegation that she was forced to give up her baking business. We agree with the defendant that there is a very real question as to whether Ms. Peterson gave up her baking business on account of the accident and even whether her giving up this business was to her financial detriment. The measure of damages in this case remains, therefore, a very real question. To say, however, that Ms. Peterson did not suffer a business loss is one thing. To say that the defendant's negligence resulted in no harm at all is quite another. Inasmuch as the jury reached the latter conclusion, we are satisfied that the judicial process has worked an injustice upon the plaintiff. The uncontradicted evidence overwhelmingly supports the contention that the defendant was responsible for the accident and that injury to the plaintiff resulted. damages. AND NOW, this We will, therefore, grant a new trial on the sole issue of ORDER day of January, 2002, the motion of the plaintiffs for post- 4 00-8018 CIVIL trial relief is GRANTED. be listed by counsel. We order a new trial limited to the question of damages, the matter to BY THE COURT, Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire For the Plaintiffs Girard Rickards, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm Kevin A. Hess, J. TOMALYN PETERSON and THOMAS PETERSON, her husband, Plaintiffs VS. MICHAEL SHREINER, Defendant AND NOW, this trial relief is GRANTED. be listed by counsel. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 00-8018 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS FOR POST-TRIAL RELIEF BEFORE HESS, J. ORDER day of January, 2002, the motion of the plaintiffs for post- We order a new trial limited to the question of damages, the matter to BY THE COURT, Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire For the Plaintiffs Girard Rickards, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm Kevin A. Hess, J.