Damages

July 23rd, 2019 by Rieders Travis in Damages

DAMAGES-NONECONOMIC-DEATH CASE Robert Kimble v. Laser Spine Inst., 2021 Pa. Super. LEXIS 610 (September 30, 2021) (McLaughlin, J.). Damages awarded were under the Wrongful Death Act.  Noneconomic damages are permitted.  The verdict was substantial, $10 million.  Mathematical formula is not necessary.  There was ample evidence supporting the jury’s award.  There was heavy psychological and emotional toll from Sharon’s death.  Robert Kimble testified that he goes to her gravesite every day.  Talked about the gravesite.  Father’s routine of visiting Sharon’s grave was testified to.  Robert Kimble testified, articulating the gravity of his loss and movingly describing his despondency.  He testified about his overarching loneliness, which led him to move in with his elderly mother because he could not bear to live alone.  He had a portrait of Sharon tattooed on his calf, and her initials on his ring finger.  Talked about the memories of his wife.  This, even though there was a PFA against him in another state.  The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.  The verdict was upheld. DAMAGES-PUNITIVE-MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS Clauss-Walton v. Gulbin, Pa. No. 20 CV 4860 (C.P. Lackawanna May 21, 2021) (Nealon, J.).  Defendant,…

DAMAGES-NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

March 20th, 2019 by Rieders Travis in Damages

Damages in a Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim Murga v. Lehigh Valley Physicians Grp. 2018 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 3053 (November 26, 2018) Johnson, J.-Court would not grant partial summary judgment on negligent affliction of emotional distress claim. Plaintiff argued that NIED claims have evolved and broadened in Pennsylvania and that her NIED claims were appropriate under multiple theories of recovery including the duty of care arising from a special relationship, a physical impact theory and a bystander theory. The court distinguished between transitory, nonrecurring physical phenomena like fright as opposed to depression, nightmares, stress and anxiety. Plaintiff’s severe emotional and psychological injuries which were accompanied by physical injuries, pain and suffering are sufficient to satisfy the physical harm requirement.