Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

ESPER NASIM v. SHAMROCK WELDING SUPPLY COMPANY (09/15/89)

filed: September 15, 1989.

ESPER NASIM, APPELLANT,
v.
SHAMROCK WELDING SUPPLY COMPANY, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order (Judgment) in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil at No. GD 83-11774.

COUNSEL

Joseph M. Maurizi, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Shelly B. Campbell, Pittsburgh, for appellee.

Olszewski, Montemuro and Kelly, JJ.

Author: Montemuro

[ 387 Pa. Super. Page 227]

The appellant, Esper Nasim, appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County denying his motion for a new trial after a jury returned a verdict in favor of the appellee, Shamrock Welding Supply Company, Inc. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.

On July 20, 1983, the appellant filed a complaint in trespass against the appellee. In his complaint, the appellant, a welder, claimed that he had been injured while working with a defective propane torch assembly allegedly sold by the appellee. In its response, the appellee denied that it sold the appellant's employer the allegedly defective product. Subsequently, the appellee filed a Petition for Leave to Join an Additional Defendant. In its petition, the appellee alleged the potential liability of two additional parties, Scovill, Inc. and Bering Sales, Inc., as manufacturer and intermediate distributor, respectively, of this product. The appellee's petition also admitted the appellee's involvement as the direct supplier of this propane torch assembly to the appellant's employer. The appellee's petition was granted. However, prior to trial, the court released both Scovill and Bering Sales as defendants in this action. Subsequently, at trial, the appellant read into evidence the appellee's Petition for Leave to Join an Additional Defendant. The appellee, however, presented evidence refuting any purported admissions contained in its petition. On March 14, 1988, the jury returned a verdict for the appellee. Timely post-trial motions were filed and denied. Judgment was entered on the verdict, and this timely appeal followed.

On appeal, the appellant maintains that the trial court erred in allowing the appellee to present evidence refuting the averments contained in its Petition to Join an Additional Defendant. Specifically, the appellant contends that the appellee's admission in its petition that it was the distributor

[ 387 Pa. Super. Page 228]

    of this product is a judicial admission which cannot subsequently be rebutted by the appellee. We agree.

It is well established that a judicial admission is an express waiver made in court or preparatory to trial by a party or his attorney, conceding for the purposes of trial, the truth of the admission. Jewelcor Jewelers & Distributors, Inc. v. Corr, 373 Pa. Super. 536, 542, 542 A.2d 72, 75 (1988). It has the effect of a confessory pleading, in that the fact is thereafter to be taken for granted, so that the opposing party need offer no evidence to prove it and the party by whom the statement was made is not allowed to disprove it. Jewelcor Jewelers, supra, 373 Pa. Superior Ct. at 542, 542 A.2d at 75. A principal element of a judicial admission is that the fact has been admitted for the advantage of the admitting party, and consequently, a judicial admission cannot be subsequently contradicted by the party that made it. Jewelcor Jewelers, supra, 373 Pa. Superior Ct. at 543, 542 A.2d at 76. As our Supreme Court stated:

Pennsylvania has followed this rule since Wills v. Kane, 2 Grant 60, 63 (Pa. 1853), where the court insisted: " Where a man alleges a fact in a court of justice, for his advantage, he shall not be allowed to contradict it afterwards. It is against good morals to permit such double dealing in the administration of justice."

Jewelcor Jewelers, supra, 373 Pa. Superior Ct. at 542, 542 A.2d at 75 (quoting Tops Apparel Mfg. Co. v Rothman, 430 Pa. 583, 587-88 n. 8, 244 A.2d ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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