Colville v. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION

791 A.2d 1168, 568 Pa. 61, 2002 Pa. LEXIS 493
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 20, 2002·No. Appeal 546 EAL 2001·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

*62 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 20th day of March, 2002, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The Superior Court erred in holding that petitioners’ request for a jury instruction on crashworthiness was waived. See Pa. R. C.P. 227(b) (“[a]ll exceptions to charge to jury shall be taken before jury retires.”); compare McNeil v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corp., 545 Pa. 209, 680 A.2d 1145, 1148-49 (1996) (issue of whether trial court failed to instruct jury in accordance with proposed points for charge waived where party failed to lodge specific objection to charge). See also Pa. R.A.P. 302(b). Accordingly, the order and judgment of the Superior Court is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court for consideration of the merits of petitioners’ claim that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the crashworthiness doctrine.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Colville v. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, 791 A.2d 1168, 568 Pa. 61, 2002 Pa. LEXIS 493 (Pa. 2002).

791 A.2d 1168 (Colville v. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Colville v. Crown Equipment Corp.
809 A.2d 916 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2002)