Colville v. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION

Decision Date20 March 2002
Citation791 A.2d 1168,568 Pa. 61
PartiesDavid and Leontine COLVILLE, Husband and Wife, Respondents, v. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION and Ominilift, Incorporated, Petitioners.
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court
ORDER

PER CURIAM.

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) ("[a]ll exceptions to charge to jury shall be taken before jury retires."); compare McNeil v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 545 Pa. 209, 680 A.2d 1145, 1148-49 (1996)

(issue of whether trial court failed to instruct jury in accordance with proposed points for charge waived where party failed to lodge specific objection to charge). 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
2 cases
  • Colville v. Crown Equipment Corp.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • September 23, 2002
    ...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
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • March 20, 2002

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