Tupponce v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
| Decision Date | 22 March 1948 |
| Docket Number | 2469 |
| Citation | 57 A.2d 898,358 Pa. 589 |
| Parties | Tupponce, Appellant, v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued January 6, 1948
Appeals, Nos. 167 and 170, Jan. T., 1947, from orders of C.P No. 7, Phila. Co., March T., 1946, No. 1276, in case of Eugene M. Tupponce v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Orders affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries. Before SLOANE, J.
Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $20,000; defendant's motion for judgment n.o.v. denied; defendant's motion for new trial granted. Plaintiff, and defendant, respectively appealed.
Orders affirmed.
Wilfred R. Lorry, with him Charles Lakatos and Freedman, Landy & Lorry, for plaintiff.
Owen B. Rhoads, with him Philip Price, Robert M Landis and Barnes, Dechert, Price, Smith & Clark, for defendant.
Before MAXEY, C.J., DREW, LINN, STERN, STEARNE and JONES, JJ.
Plaintiff, Eugene M. Tupponce, brought this action in respass to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant, Pennsylvania Railroad Company. A jury trial resulted in a verdict of $20,000 for plaintiff. After defendant's motion for judgment n.o.v. was denied by the court en banc, and its motion for a new trial was granted, both parties appealed. Plaintiff assigned as error the granting of defendant's motion for a new trial and defendant assigned the failure of the trial court to enter judgment non obstante veredicto.
Plaintiff's sole contention is that it was error to grant a new trial. After a study of the record we conclude that this case is governed by the rule of law which we have repeated so frequently in our decisions. "'We will not reverse an order awarding a new trial unless a palpable abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge is disclosed or unless an erroneous rule of law, which in the circumstances necessarily controls the outcome of the case, is certified by the trial judge as the sole reason for his action': Marko v. Mendelowski, 313 Pa. 46, 169 A. 99": Girard Tr. Co. v. Geo. V. Cresson Co., 333 Pa. 418, 422, 5 A.2d 221. There is absolutely no indication here of either a palpable abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court or an erroneous rule of law being involved. The opinion of the learned court below discusses two independent reasons why the new trial was granted but a discussion of them is unnecessary because we will not examine the validity of the reasons expressed when, as here, there was clearly a proper exercise of judicial discretion. The order granting a new trial must be affirmed.
Defendant argues that the action of the court below in awarding a new trial instead of entering judgment n.o.v. constitutes error. There is a patent defect in this contention: defendant initiated both motions. In a long line of cases arising under the Act of April 9, 1925, P.L 221, 12 PS § 682, we have consistently held that on appeal from an order of a trial court granting a new trial and discharging a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, the appellate court will not reverse and enter judgment for defendant, unless it is convinced that the court below abused its discretion in awarding a new trial, especially where the appealing party is...
To continue reading
Request your trial