Kiser v. Schlosser

Decision Date27 May 1957
Citation132 A.2d 344,389 Pa. 131
PartiesOliver J. KISER and Elma K. Kiser v. Francis SCHLOSSER (two cases). Francis L. SCHLOSSER v. Oliver J. KISER and Elma K. Kiser (two cases). Helen SCHLOSSER v. Oliver J. KISER and Elma K. Kiser, Defendant; Francis L. Schlosser, Additional Defendant (two cases). Appeals of Oliver J. KISER. Appeals of Elma K. KISER.
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

F. Joseph Thomas, Meadville, for appellants.

Stuart A. Culbertson, Meadville, for appellees.

Before CHARLES ALVIN JONES, C. J., and BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO, ARNOLD, BENJAMIN R. JONES, and COHEN, JJ.

COHEN, Justice.

The issue raised by these appeals has been before this Court on innumerable occasions: Did the trial court abuse its discretion in awarding new trials on the ground that the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence? One need only refer to 3 Vale, Pennsylvania Digest, Appeal & Error, sec. 977(3) (Supp.), to appreciate the volume of litigation questioning such actions by the lower courts, and the repetitious recital by this Court, in each case, of the applicable rule of law, viz: The determination of whether a verdict is against the weight of the evidence, so that a new trial should be granted, rests primarily within the discretion of the trial court, and its action will not be disturbed unless there is a palpable abuse of that discretion as determined from a careful review of the entire record, or a clear error of law which controlled the outcome. True it is that the assaying of the credibility of witnesses and the resolving of conflicts in their testimony are for the jury. But it is equally true that the trial judge may not hide behined the jury's verdict; he has a duty to grant a new trial when he is convinced that the judicial process has resulted in the working of an injustive upon any of the parties.

The present action, instituted in the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County, arose out of a head-on collision between two automobiles traveling in opposite directions along highway route 322 on a snowy evening in November, 1951. Both cars were demolished, and the drivers and their respective wives were injured. The following suits in trespass were instituted as a result of this accident:

Suit No. 1: Mr. and Mrs. Kiser (plaintiffs) v. Mr. Schlosser (defendant);

Suit No. 2: Mr. Schlosser (plaintiff) v. Mr. Kiser (defendant);

Suit No. 3: Mrs. Schlosser (plaintiff) v. Mr. Kiser (defendant), who in turn joined Mr. Schlosser as an additional defendant.

The jury found for the plaintiffs Kisers in Suit No. 1; and for the defendant Kiser in Suit No. 2, In Suit No. 3 the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Mrs. Schlosser against her husband alone (the additional defendant), after instructions from the court that such a verdict was permissible.

The Schlossers moved for new trials assigning as errors these instructions to the jury, and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The court en banc recognized that although Mr. Schlosser was properly joined as a defendant for purposes of contribution in the action by...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT