Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HELEN V. WILSON v. DANIEL S. JONES (03/22/85)

filed: March 22, 1985.

HELEN V. WILSON, APPELLANT
v.
DANIEL S. JONES



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, of York County at No. 81-S-1892.

COUNSEL

Arthur D. Weeks, York, for appellant.

Frank B. Boyle, York, for appellee.

Wickersham, Watkins and Hester, JJ.

Author: Wickersham

[ 341 Pa. Super. Page 281]

Helen Viola Wilson appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of York County denying her motions for new trial and for additur.

Plaintiff-appellant Wilson brought this action against defendant-appellee Jones for injuries and damages she suffered as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Appellee

[ 341 Pa. Super. Page 282]

    admitted liability for the accident; thus, the jury trial held on February 16-17, 1983 was limited to the issue of damages. The jury awarded appellant $10,000.00 for pain and suffering, $10,000.00 for past lost earnings, $7,200.00 for future lost earnings, and $1,183.12 for damages to her vehicle. The lower court then molded the verdict by deducting the $15,000.00 work loss threshold under the Pennsylvania No-fault Insurance Act*fn1 from $17,200.00, the total lost earnings awarded. This resulted in a $2,200.00 figure for wage loss and a total award of $13,383.12. Appellant filed motions for a new trial and for additur, which the lower court subsequently denied. This appeal followed.

Appellant presents the following issues for our consideration:

A. Whether the jury should have been advised by appellant's counsel and the trial court that the amount received by plaintiff for work loss benefits under the No-fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act [was] to be deducted by the jury from any award it would make for lost earnings to the date of trial?

B. Whether appellant was entitled to recover past and future costs of patent medicines?

C. Whether the trial court should have instructed the jury that the mandatory retirement ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.