Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County in case of Max Nobel and Helen Nobel, his wife v. West Penn Power Company, No. 557 March Term, 1965.
Homer W. King, with him Henry R. Beeson, for appellants.
Robert L. Webster, with him Webster, Hallal & Webster, for appellee.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Judge DiSalle did not participate. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 36 Pa. Commw. Page 578]
On April 19, 1963, Max Nobel and Helen Nobel, his wife (appellants) acquired from Marjorie B. Boyd, a widow, 251 acres of land in Fayette County. The purchase price was $6,301.26. On April 15, 1965, the West Penn Power Company (appellee) filed a bond in condemnation to acquire a right-of-way for the purpose of erecting one transmission tower and multiple high-tension power lines across a section of the appellants' land. The area affected by the right-of-way was 10.789 acres, and appellants may use this acreage in any manner which does not interfere with the transmission tower and power lines.
A board of view, after hearing, awarded damages to the appellants in the amount of $10,000. Appellants appealed this award, and, after trial in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, a jury returned a verdict for the landowners in the amount of $4,060. Appellants' motion for a new trial was denied and this appeal followed. We affirm.
Appellants raise six questions on this appeal: Was it fundamental error for the court below to charge the jury that appellee contended no economic loss to appellants, contrary to testimony? Was it error to permit a witness for appellee to testify as an expert mining engineer over objection? Was it prejudicial error
[ 36 Pa. Commw. Page 579]
to refuse rebuttal evidence of appellants to refute part of appellee's defense? Was the verdict contrary to the evidence? Was the verdict inadequate? And was the refusal to admit evidence of separate value of coal a deprivation of appellants' constitutional guarantee? The first question we must decide is which of these issues are properly before us.
Because appellants failed to specifically object to the trial court's instruction that appellee contended no economic loss to appellants, we will not consider this allegation of error. Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co., 457 Pa. 255, 322 A.2d 114 (1974). Appellants' post-trial motion for a new trial did not raise the issues concerning the propriety of permitting a witness to testify as an expert mining engineer and the refusal of certain proffered rebuttal evidence. Appellants therefore are precluded from raising those issues on appeal. Issues not properly raised and preserved in the trial court will not be reviewed for the first time on appeal. Commonwealth v. Reid, 458 Pa. 357, 326 A.2d 267 (1974). A litigant must do two things in order to preserve an issue. First, he must make a timely, specific objection at trial and, second, he must raise the issue on post-trial motion. Commonwealth v. Keysock, 236 Pa. Superior Ct. 474, 345 A.2d 767 (1975).
Before turning our attention to the remaining issues, we take note that a motion for a new trial is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, based on the circumstances of the particular case, and the court's action in granting or refusing such a motion will not be reversed in the absence of a manifest abuse of discretion or a clear error of law. Beyrand v. Kelly, 434 Pa. 326, 253 A.2d 269 (1969). The trial court's discretion in ...