In its non-precedential decision in the case of Kopeissi v. Shipwire, Inc., No. 2789 EDA 2024 (Pa Super. Jan. 23, 2026 Lazarus, P.J., Bowes, J., and Ford Elliot, P.J.E.) (Mem. Op. by Bowes, J.), the court addressed post-trial motions in a matter in which the Plaintiff challenged the trial court’s denial of his request for a new trial on punitive damages.
According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was allegedly injured when unloading pallets of Peloton weights from a tractor trailer that had allegedly been improperly stacked on top of each other.
At trial, the Defendant admitted that it had allegedly stacked the pallets did not contest that it acted negligently. Rather, its defense at trial was that it did not act recklessly.
At trial, the jury found that the tractor trailer company was not negligent. However, the jury found that the Defendant that had stacked the pallets and who had admitted negligence but denied recklessness was 80% negligent. However, the jury found that the actions of that Defendant were not reckless.
After trial, the Plaintiff argued that the jury’s verdict on the issue of reckless was against the weight of the evidence. It was also argued that improper remarks during closing arguments prejudiced the jury and tainted their deliberations on the issue of recklessness.
On appeal, the Superior Court rejected both arguments.
Relative to the claim that the jury’s finding on the issue of recklessness was against the weight of the evidence, the Superior Court noted that the Plaintiff essentially wanted the Superior Court to re-weigh the evidence and come to a different result. The Superior Court noted that it was refusing to do so. The Superior Court otherwise noted that it found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s conclusion that the jury’s verdict did not shock the trial court’s conscience.
As such, the denial of the Plaintiff’s post-trial motions was affirmed.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this non-precedential decision may click this LINK.
