Opinion
March 20, 1961.
May 2, 1961.
Appeals — Review — New trial — Adequacy of charge.
On this allocatur from an order of the Superior Court ordering a new trial with respect to the claim of one of the appellants, in which it appeared that the charge of the trial court did not adequately instruct the jury on the issues of contributory negligence, assured clear distance ahead rule, duties of motorists at intersections and at stop signs and on the question of damages, it was Held, in the circumstances, that a new trial generally should be ordered for all parties and all actions involved.
Mr. Justice BELL dissented.
Argued March 20, 1961. Before JONES, C. J., BELL, MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, BOK and EAGEN, JJ.
Appeals, Nos. 84 and 85, March T., 1961, from order of Superior Court, March T., 1960, Nos. 224 and 225, affirming judgments (except new trial granted in one action) of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Oct. T., 1955, Nos. 2486 and 2487, in cases of Doris J. Rago et vir v. Ralph S. Nelson and Doris Rago, and Ruth Rago et vir v. Same. Order affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Same case in Superior Court: 194 Pa. Super. 317.
Actions of trespass for personal injuries and property damage. Before LEGNARD, J.
Verdict for defendants as to plaintiffs D. M. Rago; verdict for plaintiffs R. T. Rago in the sums of $2,000 and $1,000 respectively, and against defendants Nelson and D. Rago, and judgments entered thereon. Plaintiffs appealed to Superior Court which affirmed judgments except new trial granted in one action, opinion by WOODSIDE, J. Appeal to Supreme Court allowed.
Edward O. Spotts, with him James P. Gill, for appellants.
Thomas F. Weis, with him Weis Weis, for appellee.
The charge of the trial court in this case was erroneous in that it failed to properly and adequately instruct the jury on the following subjects (inter alia): contributory negligence, assured clear distance rule, duties of motorists at intersections and at stop signs, damages.
The Superior Court has already ordered a new trial in the action by Mark Rago against Ralph S. Nelson and Doris J. Rago as additional defendant for the damage to Rago's automobile. That part of the Superior Court's order is affirmed. Otherwise it is reversed and a new trial generally is ordered for all parties and all actions involved.
Mr. Justice BELL dissents, and would affirm the orders of the Superior Court.