2003 Pa. Super. 257 - Campagna v. Rogan’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 441 Pa. Super. 281 - Johnston the Florist, Inc. v. TEDCO Construction Corp. · Majczyk v. Oesch · 2002 Pa. Super. 173 - Andrews v. Jackson · 2001 Pa. Super. 119 - Cangemi Ex Rel. Estate of Cangemi v. Cone · 2001 Pa. Super. 336 - Zeffiro v. Gillen
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where there is no dispute that the defendant is negligent and both parties’ medical experts agree the accident caused some injury to the plaintiff, the jury may not find the defendant’s negligence was not a substantial factor in bringing about at least some of plaintiffs injuries. See Neison v. Hines, 539 Pa. 516 , 653 A.2d 634, 637 (1995); Mano, supra. Compare Henery v. Shadle, 443 Pa.Super. 331 , 661 A.2d 439 (1995). Such a verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence adduced at trial. See Neison, supra; Mano, supra. In other words, “a jury is entitled to reject any and all evidence up until the point at which the verdict is so disproportionate to the uncontested evidence as to defy common sense and logic.” Neison, 653 A.2d at 637 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Our reading of Majczyk , however, does not lead us to conclude that a jury may disregard uncontroverted expert witness testimony that the accident at issue did not cause some injury. Rather, we conclude the jury must find the accident was a substantial cause of at least some injury, where both parties!’] medical experts agree the accident caused some injury. While the jury may then find the injuries caused by the accident were incidental or non-compensable and deny damages on that basis, the jury may not simply find the accident did not ‘cause’ an injury, where both parties’ medical experts have testified to the contrary.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Our standard of review [of an order] denying a motion for a new trial is to decide whether the trial court committed an error of law which controlled the outcome of the case or committed an abuse of discretion. A new trial will be granted on the grounds that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence where the verdict is so contrary to the evidence it shocks one’s sense of justice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.