Leech v. Jones
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
Pee Curiam,
In this trespass action, under our wrongful death and survival statutes, the jury rendered a general verdict for the defendant. At the trial plaintiff-appellant took no exceptions to the charge.
On such a record, in order to reverse the lower court’s refusal to grant a new trial, because of a prejudicial charge, it is essential that there be basic and fundamental error. Enfield v. Stout, 400 Pa. 6, 161 A. 2d 22 (1960). “Counsel may not remain silent, take no specific exception to the relevant portion of the charge which he thinks is prejudicial to his client, and later, after…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Enfield v. StoutSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
- Spitzer v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
3Cited by12 opinions
- Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Commonwealth v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- Commonwealth v. JenningsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
- Commonwealth v. ButlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
- Geesey v. Albee Pennsylvania Homes, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.