Frisina v. Stanley
| Decision Date | 13 November 1962 |
| Citation | 409 Pa. 5,185 A.2d 580 |
| Parties | Gasper FRISINA, Appellant, v. Elsie STANLEY and Albert Allegretti, a Partnership, Trading and Doing Business under the Name of Town Tavern, and Albert Allegretti, Individually, Appellees. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
F. Joseph Thomas, R. Charles Thomas, Victor L. Miceli Meadville, for appellant.
J Perry Eckels, Eckels, Stegner & Blystone, Meadville, for appellees.
Before BELL C. J., and MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and KEIM, JJ.
Plaintiff brought this action in trespass against Elsie Stanley and Albert Allegretti, a partnership, trading and doing business under the name of Town Tavern, and Albert Allegretti individually, alleging inter alia that Allegretti, the bar man, committed an assault and battery upon the plaintiff by throwing, dragging, pushing or shoving him through a doorway of the tavern in such a manner as to cause him to fall down and be injured. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $5,000 against Allegretti individually. The lower Court awarded a new trial saying '* * * in the interests of justice, we believe that a new trial should be granted for the reason that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.'
Allegretti testified, and he was corroborated by two witnesses, that after plaintiff became abusive he ordered him to leave the place; that he remained back of the bar; and that he never pushed or shoved or touched the plaintiff. After plaintiff left, the next thing Allegretti knew he heard plaintiff yell, went outside and found plaintiff lying in front of the premises yelling that his leg was hurt.
Moreover, immediately after the accident, plaintiff told several people that he was injured when he stumbled out of the doorway. He also made a statement under oath that he had fallen in defendant's premises. John Feleppa testified that plaintiff offered him $200. to testify in his favor as well as to buy clothing for Feleppa's children.
'* * * '[w]here a trial Judge or Court sees and hears the witnesses, it has not only an inherent fundamental and salutary power, but it is its duty, to grant a new trial when it believes the verdict was capricious or was against the weight of the evidence and resulted in a miscarriage of justice [citing numerous recent cases] * * *.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cummings v. Borough of Nazareth
...381 Pa. 388, 393, 113 A.2d 287; Frank v. W. S. Losier & Co., Inc., 361 Pa. 272, 276, 64 A.2d 829.' This was reaffirmed in Frisina v. Stanley, 409 Pa. 5, 7, 185 A.2d 580. For these reasons, I very strongly dissent and would grant a new trial, and, if Justice requires, additional new trials u......
-
Groh v. Philadelphia Elec. Co.
...miscarriage of Justice. For these reasons, a new trial must be granted in the interest of Justice. As we said in Frisina v. Stanley, 409 Pa. 5, page 7, 185 A.2d 580, page 581: "* * * '(w)here a trial Judge or Court sees and hears the witnesses, it has not only an inherent fundamental and sa......
-
Shotts v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission
...is so shocking as to be clearly a miscarriage of Justice. Feltovich v. City of Sharon, 409 Pa. 314, 186 A.2d 247; Frisina v. Stanley, 409 Pa. 5, 185 A.2d 580; Bohner v. Eastern Express, Inc., 405 Pa. 463, 175 A.2d 864; Clewell v. Pummer, 388 Pa. 592, 131 A.2d DISSENTING OPINION COHEN, Justi......
-
Craft v. Hetherly
...evidence and resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Burchard v. Seber, 417 Pa. 431, 438, 207 A.2d 896, 899 (1965); Frisina v. Stanley, 409 Pa. 5, 7, 185 A.2d 580, 581 (1962); Kiser v. Schlosser, 389 Pa. 131, 133, 132 A.2d 344, 345 (1957). Although a new trial should not be granted because of......