McMichael, T. v. McMichael, M. & P&J Const, Aplts.

M
[J-25A-2020 and J-25B-2020] [MO:Todd, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT TINA MCMICHAEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND : No. 50 WAP 2019 AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF : SETH W. MCMICHAEL, DECEASED : Appeal from the Order of the : Superior Court entered April 15, : 2019 at No. 721 WDA 2018, v. : affirming in part and reversing part : the Judgment of the Court of : Common Pleas of Beaver County MICHELLE J. MCMICHAEL, EXECUTRIX : entered May 7, 2018 at No. 11370- OF THE ESTATE OF PETER D. : 2013 and remanding. MCMICHAEL, DECEASED; JANICE : MCMICHAEL; P&J CONSTRUCTION AND : SUBMITTED: April 16, 2020 LANDSCAPE NURSERY LLC; AND : MARKWEST ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P. : : : APPEAL OF: MICHELLE J. MCMICHAEL, : EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF PETER : D. MCMICHAEL, DECEASED, AND P&J : CONSTRUCTION AND LANDSCAPE : NURSERY LLC : TINA MCMICHAEL, INDIVIDUALLY, AND : No. 51 WAP 2019 AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF : SETH W. MCMICHAEL, DECEASED, : Appeal from the Order of the : Superior Court entered April 15, Appellee : 2019 at No. 795 WDA 2018, : affirming in part and reversing part : the Judgment of the Court of v. : Common Pleas of Beaver County : entered May 7, 2018 at No. 11370- : 2013 and remanding. MICHELLE J. MCMICHAEL, EXECUTRIX : OF THE ESTATE OF PETER D. : SUBMITTED: April 16, 2020 MCMICHAEL, DECEASED, AND P&J : CONSTRUCTION AND LANDSCAPE : NURSERY LLC, : : Appellants : CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION JUSTICE MUNDY DECIDED: NOVEMBER 18, 2020 In this case, the jury found Appellants were negligent and their negligence was a factual cause of harm to Decedent. Verdict Slip, 7/17/17, at 1 (R.R. at 247). Nonetheless, the jury proceeded to award Wife zero dollars in economic and non-economic wrongful death damages. Id. at 3 (R.R. at 249). Because the jury’s award had “no reasonable relationship to the loss suffered by the plaintiff based on the uncontroverted evidence presented,” Carroll v. Avallone, 939 A.2d 872, 874 (Pa. 2007), I join the Majority’s decision to affirm the Superior Court’s decision remanding for a new trial on non-economic damages. However, I dissent from the Majority’s holding to the extent it does not also remand for a new trial on economic damages. In awarding a new trial on non-economic damages, the Majority explains “we cannot agree that P&J’s challenge to Wife’s ‘credibility globally,’ P&J Brief at 31, negated Wife’s otherwise uncontroverted testimony regarding her relationship with Decedent, so as to support an award of zero dollars in non-economic wrongful death damages for a widow who lost her husband of 30 years.” Maj. Op. at 17. Similarly, I conclude that Wife’s uncontroverted testimony of the services Decedent provided to their household does not support an award of zero dollars in economic wrongful death damages. Wife’s uncontroverted testimony was that Decedent performed household repairs, mowed the lawn, landscaped, cooked 80% of their meals, and drove Wife to work in inclement weather. …

Original document

Add comment

By

Recent Posts

Recent Comments