Trivial Defect Doctrine Found Not To Apply on Private Property

In the case of Ramsey v. Buchanan Auto Park, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01879-CCC (M.D. Pa. March 7, 2022 Connor, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part, post-trial motions in a slip and fall case after a verdict was entered in favor of the Plaintiff.

In one notable ruling, the court held that the trivial defect jury instructions that were developed in the context of public sidewalks was not applicable in the context of alleged defects on private property that allegedly injured business invitees.

The court noted that, in any event, this topic of liability was adequately covered by the jury instructions under which the jury was advised that, in order for the Plaintiff to recover, the property must have a condition which amounted to an unreasonable risk of harm to the Plaintiff.

This decision is also notable in that the Court found that photographs of the area where the Plaintiff fell that were taken in 2017 were admissible even though there were slight variations in the conditions of the area since the Plaintiff's 2014 fall down event.  The Court noted that the photos were authenticated by a witness and that any variations were pointed out to the jury by the witness and in the jury instructions.  

The court otherwise noted that damages for lost wages awarded by a jury is not necessarily excessive merely because the award exceeds the amount of the worker’s compensation lien. The court noted that the lien is not a cap on the Plaintiff’s claim for past wage loss.

However, the court did find that the award entered by the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff’s claim for loss of future earnings was against the weight of the evidence where the Plaintiff failed to present any evidence in this regard.

The court ordered a new trial on the issue of damages after finding that the jury may have erroneously included non-economic damages in its future earnings award.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's Order can be viewed HERE


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reid Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Chronic Marijuana Use Found Relevant to Claim for Future Earnings But Not on Life Expectancy

In the case of Koch v. Musser, No. 17-613 (C.P. Lycoming Co. Sept. 1, 2019 Linhardt, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine to preclude a Defendant from offering any evidence of his chronic marijuana use in a civil litigation matter.

The court sustained the motion and precluded the evidence relative to the Plaintiff’s alleged use of marijuana on the date of the incident.

However, the court did find that the Plaintiff’s alleged chronic use of marijuana was relevant and admissible to the issues of his future earning capacity. The court noted that deposition testimony had established that the Plaintiff had lost employment and had difficulty obtaining and maintaining employment due to his chronic marijuana use. It is also noted that his chronic marijuana use could also bar him from certain future employment opportunities.

As such, the court found that the evidence of the Plaintiff’s marijuana use was sufficiently probative on the question of his future earnings so as to be admissible.

 However, the court held that it would exclude the evidence of the Plaintiff’s chronic marijuana use as a fact relevant to his future life expectancy unless expert medical testimony was provided in that regard.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 12, 2019).

Personal Injury Medical Expenses and Wage Loss Evidentiary Issues Addressed by Pennsylvania Superior Court

In the case of Mader v. Duquesne Light Co., No. 609 W.D.A. 2018 (Pa. Super. Nov. 30, 2018 Murray, Bender, Shogan, J.) (Op. by Murray, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed several trial issues pertaining to damages in a personal injury matter.   In the end, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s granting of post-trial motions after a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff.  

The court noted that Stipulations between the parties as to the amount of recoverable medical expenses are binding upon the court as well as upon the parties reaching such a stipulation. As such, the Superior Court ruled that an award of stipulated medical expenses was supported by the record.

The court also found that the jury’s award for future medical expenses was reasonable, even though it was closer to the projections offered by the defense in evidence.  

The Superior Court noted that the jury apparently resolved the conflicts in the testimony and found the Defendant’s evidence on future medical expenses to be more credible.   As such, the Superior Court found that the trial court’s granting of a new trial based upon alleged inadequacy of the future medical expenses award was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.  

The court also noted that the granting of a new trial on one category of damages does not, in and of itself, justify a new trial on a different category of damages.   

In that regard, relative to the wage loss claims, the Superior Court found that, since the experts of both parties testified as to the Plaintiff’s inability to perform his job following the accident, the court found that the jury’s failure to award any lost wages to the Plaintiff justified a new trial in this particular category of damages.  

While the Superior Court found that an alleged failure on the part of the Plaintiff to seek alternative employment following an accident and thereby mitigate the damages alleged, can justify a lower award for wage loss, such evidence did not support a finding that the Plaintiff should not be awarded any wage losses at all.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. 

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia offices of Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention. 

Pennsylvania Superior Court Addresses Several Notable Trial Evidentiary Issues

In the case of Crespo v. Hughes, 2017 Pa. Super. 230 (Pa. Super. July 18, 2017 Ransom, Penella, Shogan, J.J.) (Op. by Ransom, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed several civil litigation trial issues.

In this decision, the court confirmed that liability for loss of future income is established by evidence of shortened economic horizons, not actual income.  

Relative to the loss of future earnings claim, the appellate court also affirmed the trial court's exclusion of the plaintiff's alleged marijuana use as well as his alleged failure to pay child support.  The court agreed that any probative value of this evidence with respect to the wage loss claim was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

On a medical evidence issue, the Superior Court noted that a treating physician could give factual evidence of causation even without filing an expert report where that information was included in the doctor’s treatment notes.  

On another evidentiary issue, the appellate court confirmed that a conviction for receiving stolen property is crimen falsi crime that was admissible against the Plaintiff under Pa. R.E. 609).  

 Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney James Beck of the Philadelphia law office of Reed Smith for bringing this case to my attention.  

Judge Mariani Reviews Propriety Award of Meds and Wages in a Premises Liability Personal Injury Case

In Wright v. Cacciutti, 3:12-cv-1682 (M.D. Pa. June 11, 2015 Mariani, J.), Judge Robert D. Mariani ruled on post-trial motions in a premises liability personal injury case and covered several important damages issues.

The court ruled that, under the Moorehead line of cases, the jury's award for past and future medical expenses could not be upheld given that the plaintiff had failed to establish the reasonable value of such expenses at trial.  The court noted that the plaintiff failed to offer either evidence of the actual cost of any past medical expenses, or proof of the reasonableness of those expenses.   As such, the jury's award in this regard was rejected as being impermissibly based upon pure speculation.

This Wright decision is also notable for the court's striking of the jury's award of damages for future medical care.  In this matter, the plaintiff did not introduce any evidence of the cost of future medical treatment, or expert testimony as to the necessity of any future medical care.  Judge Mariani noted that the issue of whether or not future medical care is necessary under the circumstances requires expert testimony in order to present this type of claim to a jury.  

Judge Mariani also upheld the settled rule that a plaintiff's own testimony is sufficient to support a claim for lost income, and may be used by the jury to infer an amount of future lost income.  

Anyone wishing to review this decision by Judge Mariani, may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Jim Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith.  Attorney Beck is the creator of the excellent Drug and Device Law Blog which can be viewed HERE.

 

Emotional Distress Claim Related to Fears of Inability to Work in Future Ruled Inadmissible

William J. Nealon Federal Courthouse
Scranton, PA

In his recent decision in the case of  Lazar v. Cedar Lake Camp,  3:13 CV 973, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 100112 (M.D. Pa. July 23, 2014 Munley, J), Judge James Munley of the Federal Middle District Court of Pennsylvania granted a Defendant's Motion in Limine to preclude the Plaintiff's proposed testimony/evidence in support of a claim of fear of losing his job due to personal injuries impacting his ability to work.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff became stuck on a sliding board that extended into a lake at a camp.  The Plaintiff was instructed by the lifeguard to jump from the slide and into the water.  The water was too shallow and the Plaintiff broke his ankle in the jump. 

The Plaintiff sued the camp and, as part of the claim, produced an expert medical witness who was prepared to testify, in part and in effect, that although the Plaintiff's injuries had not affected his current employment status due to the flexibility of the Plaintiff's employer, if the Plaintiff were to lose this job, he would be a less desirable potential employee for other employers.

The Plaintiff was employed as a senior marketing director of a company.

The defense sought to preclude this testimony on the grounds that it was unduly speculative, irrelevant, and prejudicial.  The defense pointed out that no wage loss claims were presented and that the Plaintiff was incorrectly attempting to have the doctor testify as a vocational expert would.

The Plaintiff countered with the argument that the doctor's evidence supported the Plaintiff's claims for non-economic such as increased anxiety at the dire prospects for re-employment due to his accident-related injuries should he lose his current job.

Judge Munley reasoned that where the plaintiff has not lost his job due to injury and has no wage loss claim, testimony about plaintiff’s alleged emotional distress from fear of losing his job is "too attenuated to be admissible."  Accordingly, the court granted the Motion in Limine and excluded the Plaintiff's proposed vocational evidence from his medical expert in this regard.

Judge Munley's Memorandum in Lazar can be viewed  HERE  and the accompanying Order HERE.

Source of Image of Quote:  www.funny-pictures.picphotos.net