184 A.2d 242
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.March 20, 1962.
September 25, 1962.
Appeals — Review — Verdicts — Excessiveness.
In this case in which it appeared that there was a verdict for the plaintiff of $9,850 which was reduced by the court below to $5,000 and complaint was made of the amount of the verdict and of the action reducing it and defendant also complained of alleged prejudicial remarks made by plaintiff’s counsel, it was Held that the court below had not abused its discretion or committed any error of law in ordering a new trial in the absence of a remittitur.
Mr. Justice MUSMANNO dissented and would reinstate the full amount of the verdict.
Argued March 20, 1962. Before BELL, C. J., MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN and O’BRIEN, JJ.
Appeals, Nos. 114 and 129, March T., 1962, from orders of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, April T., 1956, No. 1110, in case of Kathleen Morrison, a minor, by Kenneth Morrison and Esther Morrison, his wife, parents and natural guardians, and Kenneth Morrison and Esther Morrison, his wife, in their own right, v. Tri-Boro Motors Company. Orders affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries and property damage. Before WOLFE, J., specially presiding.
Verdict for minor plaintiff in amount of $250 and for plaintiff husband in the amount of $9,850 and for plaintiff wife in the amount of $500, defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto refused and motion for new trial granted unless plaintiff husband remits verdict in his favor in excess of $5,000 and orders entered. Plaintiff husband and defendant, respectively, appealed.
Frank J. Kernan, with him P. J. McArdle, for plaintiff.
Harry W. Miller, with him Royston, Robb. Leonard, Edgecombe Miller, for defendant.
Page 416
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE O’BRIEN, September 25, 1962:
This automobile collision occurring in 1955 came on for trial before judge and jury in 1960 in which verdicts were returned in plaintiffs’ favor. Only the verdict for Kenneth Morrison is before us on these appeals.
Defendant’s (appellant in No. 129) contention being (1) the court below erred in refusing to withdraw a juror because of prejudicial remarks made by plaintiff’s counsel (2) the verdict of the jury was capricious and arbitrary and (3) was excessive.
Plaintiff (appellant in No. 114) contends (1) the question of an excessive verdict was not before the court below and (2) the verdict was not excessive.
The verdict for plaintiff was $9,850 and an order of court granted a new trial unless plaintiff remitted the amount in excess of $5,000.
An examination of the record reveals absolutely no grounds for these appeals and the court was entirely correct in its disposition of this litigation. There being no abuse of discretion or error of law the orders will be affirmed.
Orders affirmed.
Mr. Justice MUSMANNO dissents and would reinstate the full amount of the verdict.