Pennsylvania courts require defense on all aspects of damages claims
Pennsylvania courts have repeatedly ruled that 1) jury verdicts must bear a reasonable resemblance to evidence proffered at trial and 2) a defendant who does not address and sufficiently call into controversy damages issues at trial may face a new trial on damages if the jury returns a defense verdict.
Recent appellate decisions on this issue include:
Schroth v. Karounos, No. 1012 EDA 20210 (Pa. Superior Court 2010)
Rettger v. UPMC Shadyside, 991 A2d 915 (Pa. Superior Court 2010)
Carroll v. Avallone, 939 A.2d 872, 874 (Pa. Supreme Court 2007)
The seminal case on this point is:
Kiser v. Schulte, 538 Pa. 219, 648 A.2d (Pa. Supreme Court 1994)
Defendants are well advised by the appellate courts to mount clear and specific damages arguments or face a second trial on damages in the event of a defense verdict.
To discuss a matter requiring damages analysis, contact the Center for Forensic Economic Studies at cfes@cfes.comor (215) 546-5600.