DocketNumber: Appeal, 167
Citation Numbers: 142 A. 220, 293 Pa. 264, 1928 Pa. LEXIS 509
Judges: Moschzisker, Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler, Schaefer
Filed Date: 5/8/1928
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
Argued May 8, 1928. In this action for personal injuries, plaintiff, by occupation an auto truck driver, recovered a $20,000 verdict, on which judgment was entered in his favor. Defendant has appealed.
Among other complaints, the verdict is attacked as excessive. This allegation was disposed of in a most general way by the court below, in an opinion written by the trial judge, dismissing a rule for a new trial and overruling a motion for judgment n. o. v.
It appears that, though the court below consists of two members, the trial judge alone heard argument on the above rule and motion. No reason appears why the other member of the bench failed to sit. *Page 266
In Gail v. Phila.,
Application of the above mentioned rules of procedure is particularly demanded in a case like the present *Page 267 where, though a medical expert, called by plaintiff himself, testified that a wound in the latter's leg, the principal injury complained of, would be entirely cured, so that he could follow his usual occupation in the course of six or seven months, yet a verdict of $20,000 was awarded. To say the least of it, this state of facts calls for close scrutiny by a court in banc, constituted as required by our decisions; and we are entitled to the judgment of such a tribunal as to whether the award of the jury should be cut in amount. Since the case comes before us for review without this proper action by the court below, the record will have to be remitted, so that tribunal, sitting in banc, may hear and pass on the propriety of the amount of the verdict and also on defendant's other complaints, none of which will be determined on this appeal.
The judgment is reversed; the motion for judgment n. o. v. and the rule for a new trial are reinstated, with directions that they be placed on the argument list of the court below, at an early date, and disposed of after consideration by a properly constituted court in banc.
McCormick's Contested Election , 281 Pa. 281 ( 1924 )
Carney v. Penn Oil Co. , 289 Pa. 588 ( 1927 )
Hanover Township School Directors , 290 Pa. 95 ( 1927 )
Gail v. Philadelphia , 273 Pa. 275 ( 1922 )
Dobson v. Crafton Borough , 315 Pa. 52 ( 1934 )
Frank, Admr. v. Bayuk , 322 Pa. 282 ( 1936 )
Commonwealth v. Parker , 294 Pa. 144 ( 1928 )
Chuplis v. Steve Shalamanda Coal Co. , 192 Pa. Super. 76 ( 1960 )
International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union v. ... , 82 F. Supp. 65 ( 1949 )
Kearney v. McCauley Et Ux. , 360 Pa. 255 ( 1948 )
Iacovino v. Caterino , 336 Pa. 308 ( 1939 )