It’s no secret that jury values of jury verdicts in PA have exploded in the past few years. In fact, these days, it’s not unusual to see a verdict for hundreds of millions for just one plaintiff. For example, one recent PA verdict — in favor of a single plaintiff who sustained serious injuries — exceeded a billion dollars.
But is there no limit on such awards?
We understand the need for compensation, but can it go too far? And what about punitive damage awards, which could bankrupt a defendant-company without “compensating” a plaintiff? We have written about this. Regarding punitive damages, our Supreme Court has decided that pecuniary awards (punitive damages) cannot exceed actual damages by more than tenfold. But is that the only limit on a jury writing practically any high number on the verdict slip?
Fortunately, for a defendant, it’s not.
A Verdict that Shocks the Judicial Conscious
In Pennsylvania, judges maintain the ability to “take corrective action” to prevent a fundamental miscarriage of justice from happening. Criswell v. King, 834 A.2d 505, 512 (Pa. 2003) (emphasis added). The court possesses the power of “remittitur” (latin for the ability to reduce and a jury’s award) and “additur” (the power to increase it). In other words, a judge can prevent a jury from adding as many zeros as it would like to a verdict slip. In fact, if a judge finds that a jury’s verdict “shocks the judicial conscience” of the court, it can reduce the award accordingly.
May the Plaintiff Appeal
Sure, the plaintiff may appeal the trial judge’s decision to reduce an award. However, the superior court will often defer to the trial judge’s opinion on this. Why? The trial just had been there, to hear the evidence. Thus, he or she is best positioned to say whether the jury’s verdict was “shocking,” given the evidence.
In Getting v. Mark Sales & Leasing, Inc., 2022 Pa. Super. 58 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022), the Superior Court noted:
[T]he issue is not whether the verdict shocks the conscience of this [Appellate] Court, but rather, whether the trial court’s decision that the verdict did not shock its conscience was manifestly unreasonable. A weight-of-the evidence claim “derives from the fact that the trial court, like the jury, had an opportunity to hear the evidence and observe the demeanor of the witnesses. . . .”
Recent Example:
Damages Awarded in $2.25B Roundup Verdict Slashed
In John McKivison v the Roundup Company, Plaintiff claimed the Defendant’s product caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Fortunately, despite the diagnosis, Mr. McKivison remained employed. In fact, he failed to make a claim for lost wages against Roundup.
In any event, the Plaintiff sought actual and punitive damages, for the Defendant’s alleged reckless disregard to the safety of the public and consumers. As reported, the jury awarded this single Plaintiff a total of $2.25 billion dollars: $225 million dollars in actual damages, and $2B in punitive damages.
However, on June 4, 2024, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Susan I. Schulman reduced the jury’s final damage award to $404,308,904.11 – consisting of $50 million in compensatory damages, $350 million in punitive damages and $4,308,904.11 in delay damages.
On what basis?
Judge Schulman opined that John McKivison’s injuries were all noneconomic, meaning, no claims existed for past or future wage loss, which is often what drives up compensatory damage verdicts. The Court ruled that McKivison clearly established pain and suffering from his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. However, the award was inappropriate given that the plaintiff remained employed, nor did he seek any specific amount for out of pocket expenses in his complaint.
Contact Us Any Time!
Feel free to reach out to a Pittsburgh lawyer at our Western Pennsylvania firm any time about any verdict-related matter.
412.342.0992
