Opinion
March 24, 1958.
April 21, 1958.
Practice — New trial — Limited new trial — Trespass action — New trial limited to issue of damages.
In this action of trespass to recover damages for injuries caused by defendant's negligence, in which the court below set aside a verdict of $25,000 as excessive but directed that the new trial be limited to the single issue of the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiff, it was Held that (1) the court below did not abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial for the purpose of redetermining the amount of damages and (2) in limiting the trial to that single issue.
Mr. Justice MUSMANNO dissented.
Argued March 24, 1958. Before JONES, C. J., BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO, ARNOLD, JONES and COHEN, JJ.
Appeal, No. 9, March T., 1958, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Jan. T., 1954, No. 1749, in case of John M. Hanus v. K. M. B. Construction Company, Inc. et al. Order affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries. Before SOFFEL, J.
Verdict for plaintiff in amount of $25,000; order entered granting defendants' motion for new trial (but limiting new trial to the issue of the amount of the damages) because of excessiveness of verdict. Plaintiff appealed.
Robert F. Burkardt, with him A. F. Burkardt, for appellant.
Bruce R. Martin, with him Pringle, Bredin Martin, for appellee.
In this action for personal injuries suffered as a result of an automobile accident, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, a passenger in one of the vehicles, in the amount of $25,000. The court below granted the defendants' motions for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was excessive, and directed that the new trial be limited to the issue of the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiff. From this order of the court en banc the present appeal has been taken.
The lower court concluded that the evidence presented by the plaintiff as to the nature and extent of his injuries, suffering endured, the amount of wages lost and expenses incurred, as well as the impairment of his future earning power was inadequate to support the award.
A recital of the proof adduced on the issue of damages would serve no useful purpose. From our review of the record we are satisfied that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial for the purpose of redetermining the amount of damages which may properly be awarded the plaintiff.
Order affirmed.
Mr. Justice MUSMANNO dissents.