Does Zero Mean Zero Or New Trial?

The case of Kopytin v. Aschinger, 947 A.2d 739 (Pa. Super. 2008) is the latest in a line of cases addressing what happens in a Personal Injury trial after a jury has awarded no damages for pain and suffering when the evidence clearly established that the defendant caused the accident and the injuries sustained by the plaintiff are of a type that would be reasonably expected to cause pain and suffering. Ultimately, the Superior Court followed prior rulings and held that an award of only past medical expenses was inadequate. Instead, a new trial on damages was required. Nevertheless, there is still authority which allows the courts to affirm zero verdicts under certain circumstances.

New Trial
Generally, an award of zero for pain and suffering with admitted injuries should result in a new trial on damages. The following are relevant cases:

Kopytin v. Aschinger, 947 A.2d 739 (Pa. Super. 2008)
Plaintiff was rear-ended and treated with a chiropractor and neurologist for cervical, lumbar, bi-lateral shoulder and wrist as well as left elbow strains. When the jury's verdict was only for the $2,540.92 of unreimbursed medical expenses,
the verdict was reversed as against the clear weight of evidence.

Womack v. Crowley, 877 A.2d 1279 (Pa. Super. 2005)
Plaintiff was rear-ended and suffered a thoracic strain and a torn meniscus in her left knee. Future surgery projected to cost $6,000.00 was recommended and plaintiff testified regarding pain and suffering. When the jury awarded only $6,000.00, the verdict was overturned as being against the weight of evidence because of no award for pain and suffering.

Marsh v. Hanley, 856 A.2d 138 (Pa. Super. 2004)
In a clear liability case, the plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries which both parties' experts conceded could take six months to heal. Lost wages were $2,900.00 and so was the jury's verdict. A new trial on damages was ordered because of no award for pain and suffering.

Burnhauser v. Bumberger, 745 A.2d 1256 (Pa. Super. 2000)
Plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries in a head-on collision. The defense expert conceded that plaintiff suffered injuries, but stated that they should have resolved within six months. An award of $1,257.24 for unreimbursed medical expenses was overturned and a new trial on damages was ordered.

No New Trial
Despite the cases cited above, there is still authority from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that can support a zero verdict for pain and suffering.

Davis v. Mullen, 773 A.2d 764 (Pa. 2001)
Plaintiff's tractor trailer was hit head on, left the road and turned on its side. Plaintiff treated at the Emergency Room and had pain over the weekend, but then went back to work. He saw a chiropractor twenty days later who treated him for twenty visits, but who testified that he couldn't say for certain that the injury was related to this accident as opposed to plaintiff's three prior accidents. The jury awarded only $4,218.44, which covered medical expenses and personal property damages. The court's holding was that a jury's award for no pain and suffering can stand where the trial court had a reasonable basis to believe that (1) the jury did not believe that the plaintiff suffered only pain and suffering or (2) that a preexisting condition or injury was the sole cause of the alleged pain and suffering.