Opinion
March 17, 1966.
April 19, 1966.
Appeals — Scope of review — New trial — Complaint about charge — Lack of exception.
Where no exception is taken to the charge, appellate review of error in the charge is limited to basic and fundamental error, which misled the jury to a party litigant's prejudice.
Before MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.
Appeal, No. 21, March T., 1966, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Armstrong County, June T., 1964, No. 50, in case of Virginia Leech, administratrix of estate of William M. Leech v. William R. Jones. Judgment affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries. Before GRAFF, P. J.
Verdict for defendant; plaintiff's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto refused and judgment entered on the verdict. Plaintiff appealed.
Edward J. Steiner, for appellant.
Robert E. Ashe, for appellee.
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 an adverse verdict, assign a particular portion of the charge as error.": Spitzer v. Philadelphia Transportation Company, 348 Pa. 548, 36 A.2d 503 (1944).
The record presents no such error, and we must sustain the action of the lower court.
Judgment affirmed.