Colville v. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION
Decision Date | 20 March 2002 |
Citation | 791 A.2d 1168,568 Pa. 61 |
Parties | David and Leontine COLVILLE, Husband and Wife, Respondents, v. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION and Ominilift, Incorporated, Petitioners. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
AND NOW, this 20th day of March, 2002, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The Superior Court erred in holding that petitioners' request for a jury instruction on crashworthiness was waived. See Pa. R. C.P. 227(b) (); compare McNeil v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 545 Pa. 209, 680 A.2d 1145, 1148-49 (1996)
(. ) See also Pa. R.A.P. 302(b). Accordingly, the order and judgment of the Superior Court is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court for consideration of the merits of petitioners' claim that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the crashworthiness doctrine.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Colville v. Crown Equipment Corp.
...preserved their challenge to the jury instructions by making a timely objection during the charge conference. Colville v. Crown Equipment Corp., 568 Pa. 61, 791 A.2d 1168 (2002). The Supreme Court then remanded the case to our Court for an exclusive "consideration of the merits of [Appellan......
- Owens v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole