Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligencetrialverdictsustainedcompensatory damagescivil procedure
plaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligenceprecedenttrialverdictmotioncase lawsustainedcompensatory damages

Related Cases

Long Island Airports Limousine Service Corp. v. Northwest Airlines, 124 A.D.2d 711, 508 N.Y.S.2d 223
View Case »
Szedlock v. Tenet, 139 F.Supp.2d 725, 11 A.D. Cases 1345, 20 NDLR P 193
View Case »
Pinto v. Spectrum Chemicals and Laboratory Products, 200 N.J. 580, 985 A.2d 1239, 108 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1070, 30 IER Cases 367
View Case »
Livingston v. Krown Chemical Mfg., Inc., 394 Mich. 144, 229 N.W.2d 793
View Case »
Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 99 S.Ct. 1635, 60 L.Ed.2d 115, 27 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1, 3 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 822, 4 Media L. Rep. 2575
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Roth v. Ross, 85 A.3d 590, 2014 PA Super 20

Facts

On August 17, 2007, Jennifer Ross struck the rear of Eileen Roth's vehicle, leading Roth to file a negligence suit against Ross and Erie Insurance Group for injuries sustained in the accident. The jury awarded Roth $60,000, which included $40,000 for past pain and suffering and $20,000 for future medical expenses. Roth subsequently requested delay damages on the entire jury award, but the trial court only granted delay damages on the past pain and suffering award, denying it for future medical expenses.

On August 17, 2007, the vehicle operated by Jennifer Ross (“Ross”) struck the rear of Roth's vehicle on Interstate 81 in Luzerne County. On August 14, 2009, Roth initiated the underlying action in negligence against Ross and Erie Insurance Group to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the accident, including past and future pain and suffering, past and future medical expenses, lost wages, lost future earning capacity, mental anguish, and emotional distress.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred in refusing to include the $20,000.00 of the jury's verdict apportioned to future medical expenses when calculating Roth's entitlement to delay damages.

Whether the trial court erred in refusing to include the $20,000.00 of the jury's verdict apportioned to future medical expenses when calculating [Roth's] entitlement to delay damages[?]

Rule

Under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238(a)(1), damages for delay shall be added to the amount of compensatory damages awarded against each defendant found to be liable to the plaintiff in the verdict of a jury.

At the request of the plaintiff in a civil action seeking monetary relief for bodily injury, […] damages for delay shall be added to the amount of compensatory damages awarded against each defendant or additional defendant found to be liable to the plaintiff in the verdict of a jury [ …] and shall become part of the verdict[.]

Analysis

The court analyzed the trial court's denial of delay damages by interpreting Rule 238(a)(1) and concluded that future medical expenses are indeed considered monetary relief for bodily injury. The trial court's reasoning, which focused on whether future medical expenses constituted 'bodily injury,' was deemed incorrect. The court emphasized that future medical expenses are compensatory damages related to Roth's injuries and should therefore be included in the delay damages calculation.

The trial court's focus in reaching its conclusion that future medical expenses did not warrant the addition of delay damages was Roth's failure to provide case law indicating that future medical expenses constituted 'bodily injury.'

Conclusion

The Superior Court reversed the trial court's decision regarding delay damages for future medical expenses and remanded the case for recalculation of damages.

Based upon our rules of construction and prior precedent, we conclude that the trial court erred by failing to grant Roth's request for delay damages on the jury's award of $20,000.00 allocated for future medical expenses.

Who won?

Eileen Roth prevailed in the case because the Superior Court found that the trial court erred in denying her request for delay damages on the jury's award for future medical expenses.

As a matter of first impression, the Superior Court, No. 977 MDA 2013, Donohue, J., held that injured motorist was entitled to delay damages on jury award for future medical expenses.

You must be