Willenpart v. Otis Elevator Co.

112 A. 135, 269 Pa. 131, 1920 Pa. LEXIS 779
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided December 31, 1920·No. Appeal, No. 151·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The appellant’s sole assignment of error is that the court below erred in not setting aside the verdict on the ground of excessiveness. In the light of all the testimony that court was of opinion that the damages [132]*132awarded to the plaintiff might have been more. The power of this court, conferred by the Act of 1891, to supervise the amount of a verdict, is, as we have repeatedly held, exceptional and tó be exercised only in very clear cases. The question of the excessiveness of a verdict is always for the court below in the first instance, and, in the case before us, we have not been convinced of any abuse of judicial discretion in refusing to disturb the damages awarded to the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Willenpart v. Otis Elevator Co., 112 A. 135, 269 Pa. 131, 1920 Pa. LEXIS 779 (Pa. 1920).

112 A. 135 (Willenpart v. Otis Elevator Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Novak v. Ford City Borough
141 A. 496 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)
Sullivan v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R.
116 A. 369 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)
Rankin v. Ward Baking Co.
116 A. 58 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)