Mizenko v. McDonald's Restaurants of Pennsylvania, Inc.
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Carbon County
1Opinion of the Court
NANOVIC, PJ,
Before us is plaintiff’s post-trial motion following a jury verdict in favor of defendant. In his motion, plaintiff claims we erred in what we instructed the jury (i.e., the standard of care applicable to children) and in what we failed to *479instruct (i.e., spoliation), and further erred in excluding expert testimony which plaintiff sought to present and in denying plaintiff’s request to call certain former employees of defendant as of cross-examination. Each of these issues will be discussed in the order advanced by plaintiff.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 30, 2005,…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Harman Ex Rel. Harman v. BorahSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Kuhns v. BruggerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
- Commonwealth v. PressleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- Commonwealth v. DunkleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- Stewart v. MottsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.