Superior Court Reverses Verdict, Orders New Trial for Pain and Suffering and Loss of Consortium in Amputation Case

On appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed and remanded a trial court’s verdict that failed to award damages to the plaintiff for pain and suffering and to the plaintiff’s wife for loss of consortium. 

The plaintiff brought a negligence action after being run over by a moving-truck operated by the defendant. The accident resulted in the plaintiff needing to have his leg amputated. After finding the defendant [51%] negligent, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for his medical expenses, but awarded nothing regarding pain and suffering or loss of consortium for his wife. 

The appellate court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a new trial for the claims of pain and suffering and for his wife’s loss of consortium. To support its holding, the appellate court cited substantive state case law, noting that a plaintiff is entitled to compensation for pain and suffering when there is a reasonable basis for a jury to believe that the plaintiff endured any pain or suffering or a reasonable basis to believe that a pre-existing condition or injury was not the sole cause of the alleged pain and suffering. Upon reviewing the record, the appellate court found that the plaintiff experienced profound pain by being run over by a truck and that his injuries were of the type that naturally and normally cause pain and suffering. Regarding the loss of consortium claim, the appellate court, again citing substantive state case law, held that it was an obvious error to not award damages when a plaintiff offers evidence of losses—such as a loss of spousal services, society, conjugal affections and the overall diminution of marital expectations—all resulting from bodily injury, that would meet the requirements of proving a claim of loss of consortium. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}