Opinion
June 16, 1962.
September 13, 1962.
Practice — New trial — Verdict — Inadequacy — Damages grossly inadequate — Evidence of liability clearly preponderating in favor of plaintiff — Compromise verdict.
In a trespass case, in which it appeared that the court below granted plaintiff a new trial on the ground of inadequacy of verdict, holding that (a) the amount of damages awarded was grossly inadequate to compensate plaintiff for the extremely serious injury he had sustained, and (b) the evidence on the question of liability clearly preponderated in favor of plaintiff, and, therefore, the verdict could not be upheld as a compromise, it was Held that the order of the court below should be affirmed.
Before RHODES, P.J., WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ. (ERVIN, J., absent).
Appeal, No. 248, Oct. T., 1962, from order of Court of Common Pleas No. 7 of Philadelphia County, Dec. T., 1957, No. 2994, in case of Mark Mendel v. Waxbrown Corp. trading as Extra Dry Cafe. Order affirmed.
Same case in court below: 27 Pa. D. C. 2d 702.
Trespass for personal injuries. Before HAGAN, P.J.
Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $2,500; plaintiff's motion for new trial granted. Defendant appealed.
Ralph S. Croskey, for appellant.
Edgar B. Einhorn, with him Irving W. Singer, for appellee.
Argued June 16, 1962.
The order of the court below granting a new trial is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge HAGAN of the Court of Common Pleas No. 1 of Philadelphia County, as reported in 27 Pa. D. C.2d 702.