In a 44 page decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated a jury verdict for the sole purpose of allowing the Plaintiff Sears, Roebuck & Co. ('Sears") to have its demand for punitive damages submitted to a jury.
As background, Sears sued its landlord for constructive eviction and the landlord's agent for interference with contract. The jury found in favor of Sears on all claims. However, the trial judge granted the Defendants Motion for Directed Verdict on Punitive Damages.
On appeal, in a decision authored by Judge David Wecht, the Pa Superior Court reversed for the sole purpose of having the issue of punitive damages submitted to the Jury. In the opinion, Judge Wecht set forth a lengthy dissertation of the law in Pennsylvania on Constructive evictions. It is worthy to read if you practice in that area. While the Court affirmed the Judge's decision not to set aside the jury's verdict, the court did find that the Judge erred in granting the directed verdict as to punitive damages. Thus the case is remanded so that the issue of punitive damages can be presented to the jury.
This case will need to be retried before a new jury for the new jury to decide if punitive damages are warranted. However, the jury does not get to decide if there is liability or the amount of damages on the underlying tort of interference with contractual relations. While the result is favorable to Sears they could be at a disadvantage now having to convince a new jury that the agents conduct was willful, reckless or outrageous conduct warranting an award of punitive damages.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
