Harris v. United States

Third Circuit

Harris v. United States

219 F. App'x 248

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 14, 2007

Docket06-1357

StatusUnpublished

This text of 219 F. App'x 248 (Harris v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harris v. United States, 219 F. App'x 248 (3d Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

McKEE, Circuit Judge.

The United States appeals the judgment that was entered following a trial before a Magistrate Judge on claims brought by plaintiffs, husband and wife, under the Federal Tort Claims Act. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.

Inasmuch as we write primarily for the parties who are familiar with the baek- *249 ground of this case, we need not repeat the factual or procedural background. The only issue raised on appeal is whether the award of $520,000 for pain and suffering was excessive. We have reviewed the extremely thorough, careful and thoughtful Memorandum of Decision filed by Magistrate Judge Rueter dated, November 2, 2005, setting forth his findings of fact and conclusions of law. We will affirm the award for pain and suffering substantially for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Rueter’s Memorandum of Decision.

In explaining why he was denying the government’s motion for remittitur, the Magistrate Judge explained:

The [amount] is well supported by the court’s 32 page opinion, which contains 155 findings of fact and conclusions of law. There is no need for this court to say more to support its decision in this case, except to note the obvious. Reasonable minds will differ when quantifying the emotional and physical pain and suffering and the loss of life’s pleasures of another individual .... the mere fact that the government disagrees with the court’s assessment of Mr. Harris’ non-economic damages is no basis for this court to alter its award which was given after careful deliberation and reflection.

App. 004 (citing Herb v. Hallowell, 304 Pa. 128, 154 A. 582, 584 (1931) and Waldorf v. Shuta, 142 F.3d 601, 623 (3d Cir.1998)).

Nothing more needs to be said. It is clear to us that the award which the government is challenging was indeed “given after careful deliberation and reflection,” and the fact that the government disagrees with the result of the court’s analysis clearly does not justify our setting aside an award for pain and suffering which the Magistrate Judge properly calculated and explained.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we will affirm the order denying the Government’s Post-Trial Motion For A Remittitur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

McKEE, Circuit Judge.

The United States appeals the judgment that was entered following a trial before a Magistrate Judge on claims brought by plaintiffs, husband and wife, under the Federal Tort Claims Act. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.

Inasmuch as we write primarily for the parties who are familiar with the baek- *249 ground of this case, we need not repeat the factual or procedural background. The only issue raised on appeal is whether the award of $520,000 for pain and suffering was excessive. We have reviewed the extremely thorough, careful and thoughtful Memorandum of Decision filed by Magistrate Judge Rueter dated, November 2, 2005, setting forth his findings of fact and conclusions of law. We will affirm the award for pain and suffering substantially for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Rueter’s Memorandum of Decision.

In explaining why he was denying the government’s motion for remittitur, the Magistrate Judge explained:

The [amount] is well supported by the court’s 32 page opinion, which contains 155 findings of fact and conclusions of law. There is no need for this court to say more to support its decision in this case, except to note the obvious. Reasonable minds will differ when quantifying the emotional and physical pain and suffering and the loss of life’s pleasures of another individual .... the mere fact that the government disagrees with the court’s assessment of Mr. Harris’ non-economic damages is no basis for this court to alter its award which was given after careful deliberation and reflection.

App. 004 (citing Herb v. Hallowell, 304 Pa. 128, 154 A. 582, 584 (1931) and Waldorf v. Shuta, 142 F.3d 601, 623 (3d Cir.1998)).

Nothing more needs to be said. It is clear to us that the award which the government is challenging was indeed “given after careful deliberation and reflection,” and the fact that the government disagrees with the result of the court’s analysis clearly does not justify our setting aside an award for pain and suffering which the Magistrate Judge properly calculated and explained.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we will affirm the order denying the Government’s Post-Trial Motion For A Remittitur.

Mark Waldorf, in No. 97-5195 v. Edward J. Shuta Carolyn Wood Kenneth C. Spence, Jr. Mary Kay Spence Borough of Kenilworth Joseph Rego Henry J. Moll Victor Smith Lawrence Stickle Charles David Joseph Ventre Thomas Neville William J. Ahern William E. Conrad Livio Mancino Gary Rowinsky Mario Dibella Vincent Scorese Harry Grapenthin Mary Kelly Richard McCormack William Holt A. Zeleniak Richard Lomax C. William Gutekunst Frederick Bailey Michael Padula Charles Scheuermann Fred Sues Joseph Walyuf Thomas McHale Philip Ernst Frank J. Mascaro Walter E. Boright, Jr. Albert Simmenroth James E. O'Brien Frank J. Johdof Raymond Blydenburgh Edward Kasbarian John J. O'LOck Edmac Enterprises Edward McDermott Mark Waldorf v. Edward J. Shuta Carolyn Wood Kenneth C. Spence, Jr. Mary Kay Spence Borough of Kenilworth Joseph Rego Henry J. Moll Victor Smith Lawrence Stickle Charles David Joseph Ventre Thomas Neville William J. Ahern William E. Conrad Livio Mancino Gary Rowinsky Mario Dibella Vincent Scorese Harry Grapenthin Mary Kelly Richard McCormack William Holt A. Zeleniak Richard Lomax C. William Gutekunst Frederick Bailey Michael Padula Charles Scheuermann Fred Sues Joseph Walyuf Thomas McHale Philip Ernst Frank J. Mascaro Walter E. Boright, Jr. Albert Simmenroth James E. O'Brien Frank J. Johdof Raymond Blydenburgh Edward Kasbarian John J. O'LOck Edmac Enterprises Edward McDermott Borough of Kenilworth, in No. 97-5222

142 F.3d 601 (Third Circuit, 1998)

Herb v. Hallowell

154 A. 582 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1930)

State v. Levine

154 A. 582 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 F. App'x 248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-united-states-ca3-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack