Legal Opinion · Dissent

Catalano v. Bujak

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 1, 1992No. 89 C.D. 1991Published

1DissentDoyle, Judge

While I agree with the majority that the jury’s award on damages was inadequate, I must dissent, nevertheless, because I do not believe that we should reach that issue without considering first the issue of the jury’s compromise. Further, I would not remand this case for a new trial on the issue of liability.

Once the jury determined that Officer Bujak’s conduct was willful (established beyond doubt by its answer to the first question submitted to it) and that it was Bujak’s conduct which caused the harm suffered by Catalano (likewise established beyond peradventure by the answer to question…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. King Et Vir v. BreachCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  2. GAGLIANO v. DitzlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  3. Krivijanski v. Union RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  4. Lancie v. GilesCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  5. McMeekin v. Harry M. Stevens, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API