Case Notes

Excessive Damages May Be Reduced

A jury award for damages that is unsupported by the evidence produced at trial may be reversed as excessive. Smalls v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corp. et al, Superior Court of Pennsylvania, No. 1828 EDA 2002, No. 1829, Feb. 13, 2004.

Oscar Smalls was employed by the Philadelphia Housing Authority from 1954 to 1984. During the course of his employment, Smalls worked with asbestos-containing materials that produced dust when he handled them. During this time, Smalls was also a smoker and had smoked for approximately 20 years. When he voluntarily retired in 1984, he did not claim any health complications. In 1997, Smalls sought medical treatment for shortness of breath and was hospitalized with internal bleeding in his abdomen and colon. Smalls did not seek further medical treatment until 1999, after he was contacted by an attorney who represented a deceased coworker. Thereafter, Smalls and his wife commenced an action seeking damages for asbestos-related disease.

After a trial, the jury awarded Oscar Smalls $2 million in pain and suffering damages and his wife $500,000 for loss of consortium. The defendants appealed, and the appellate court affirmed the majority of the trial court's findings. However, the appellate court held that the jury award of damages was excessive and remanded the matter for a new trial on the issue of damages. The court considered that although asbestosis is a permanent condition that could be debilitating, the evidence produced at trial demonstrated that Smalls' injuries were minimal. It considered that Smalls was 74 years old and in poor health due to conditions unrelated to the asbestosis, including: chronic obstruction pulmonary disease, anemia, cirrhosis of the liver, abdominal and colon conditions, previously contracted pneumonia and smoking for 20 years. The court further considered that Smalls had not sought continuing medical care for any of his conditions. Furthermore, Smalls did not seek lost wages, out of pocket expenses, or other economic claims. Finally, his wife was not entitled to damages for loss of consortium, as she testified that they had a pleasant marriage and were happy.

Excessive Damages May Be Reduced

A jury award for damages that is unsupported by the evidence produced at trial may be reversed as excessive. Smalls v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corp. et al , Superior Court of Pennsylvania, No. 1828 EDA 2002, No. 1829, Feb. 13, 2004.

Oscar Smalls was employed by the Philadelphia Housing Authority from 1954 to 1984. During the course of his employment, Smalls worked with asbestos-containing materials that produced dust when he handled them. During this time, Smalls was also a smoker and had smoked for approximately 20 years. When he voluntarily retired in 1984, he did not claim any health complications. In 1997, Smalls sought medical treatment for shortness of breath and was hospitalized with internal bleeding in his abdomen and colon. Smalls did not seek further medical treatment until 1999, after he was contacted by an attorney who represented a deceased coworker. Thereafter, Smalls and his wife commenced an action seeking damages for asbestos-related disease.

After a trial, the jury awarded Oscar Smalls $2 million in pain and suffering damages and his wife $500,000 for loss of consortium. The defendants appealed, and the appellate court affirmed the majority of the trial court's findings. However, the appellate court held that the jury award of damages was excessive and remanded the matter for a new trial on the issue of damages. The court considered that although asbestosis is a permanent condition that could be debilitating, the evidence produced at trial demonstrated that Smalls' injuries were minimal. It considered that Smalls was 74 years old and in poor health due to conditions unrelated to the asbestosis, including: chronic obstruction pulmonary disease, anemia, cirrhosis of the liver, abdominal and colon conditions, previously contracted pneumonia and smoking for 20 years. The court further considered that Smalls had not sought continuing medical care for any of his conditions. Furthermore, Smalls did not seek lost wages, out of pocket expenses, or other economic claims. Finally, his wife was not entitled to damages for loss of consortium, as she testified that they had a pleasant marriage and were happy.