Opinion
March 28, 1944.
April 11, 1944.
Appeals — Review — Verdict — Adequacy — Survival Act — Wrongful death Acts.
In a suit in trespass, in which the jury awarded a widow as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband the sum of $1,200 under the survival Act of July 2, 1937, P. L. 2755, and $3,000 under the wrongful death Acts of April 15, 1851, P. L. 669, and April 26, 1855, P. L. 309, and the plaintiff filed a motion for new trial on the ground that the verdicts were inadequate, it was Held, under the circumstances, that there was no error in the dismissal of the motion.
Argued March 28, 1944.
Before MAXEY, C. J., DREW, LINN, STERN, PATTERSON, STEARNE and HUGHES, JJ.
Appeals, Nos. 104 and 105, March T., 1944, from judgments of C. P., Allegheny Co., April T., 1943, No. 1300, in case of Rose Ann John, Administratrix, v. Pittsburgh Railways Company. Judgments affirmed.
Actions in trespass for wrongful death. Before DITHRICH, J.
Verdicts, in amount of $1,200 for estate, and $3,000 for next of kin. Motions by plaintiff for new trial refused. Plaintiff appealed.
E. V. Buckley, of Mercer Buckley, for appellant.
D. H. McConnell, with him J. R. McNary, for appellee.
In this suit in trespass the jury awarded the widow as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband the sum of $1,200 under the survival Act of July 2, 1937, P. L. 2755, and $3,000 under the wrongful death Acts of April 15, 1851, P. L. 669, and April 26, 1855, P. L. 309. Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdicts were inadequate. The court below overruled the motion saying: ". . . while the testimony would have supported larger verdicts in both instances, they are not so inadequate as to shock the conscience of the court. In fact, in both instances they are for substantial amounts. The jury apparently determined that the proven earnings of the deceased, which covered only the period since this Nation became the arsenal of democracy, were in excess of what he would normally have earned . . . and that at the age of sixty-three he could not normally be expected to be gainfully employed more than about two years longer." Judgments were entered upon the verdicts and these appeals then taken. We find no error in the action of the learned court.
Judgments affirmed.