Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

GORDON v. W. C. MCQUAIDE (04/17/62)

THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


April 17, 1962

GORDON, APPELLANT,
v.
W. C. MCQUAIDE, INC.

Appeal, No. 116, March T., 1962, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County, Dec. T., 1959, No. 297, in case of Pauline H. L. Gordon v. W. C. McQuaide, Inc. and Ronald Berkheimer. Judgment affirmed.

COUNSEL

Robert S. Glass, with him Glass & Glass, for appellant.

Robert G. Rose, with him Spence, Custer, Saylor & Wolfe, for appellees.

Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen and O'brien, JJ.

[ 407 Pa. Page 317]

OPINION PER CURIAM

Plaintiff-appellant, Pauline Gordon, appeals from the refusal of the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County to grant a new trial following a jury verdict for the defendants, W. C. McQuaide, Inc. and Ronald Berkheimer, in a trespass action arising out of an automobile accident.

On appeal to this Court, appellant advances seven reasons to justify her request for a new trial. After reading the record and noting the alleged errors referred to by appellant, we find none of her contentions valid. We especially fail to agree with appellant that the "aggregate result" of claimed improprieties allegedly

[ 407 Pa. Page 318]

    committed during the trial "[created] an atmosphere which pervaded the trial which was so prejudicial to the rights of the plaintiff as to deny her a fair trial of the real issues involved."

Accordingly, no reasons exist which would merit any modification of the conclusions reached by the court below.

Disposition

Judgment affirmed.

ING OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE MUSMANNO:

I would grant a new trial in this case for the following reasons. I believe that the trial judge in his charge, undoubtedly unintentionally, unduly emphasized the case of the defendants; the extended cross-examination of the plaintiff on matters irrelevant to the factual issue may well have prejudiced the jury against the plaintiff; it was error for the court not to permit plaintiff's doctor to testify from X-ray pictures which he had made.

19620417

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.