Gross v. Lockwood Folding Box Corp.
This text of 277 A.2d 359 (Gross v. Lockwood Folding Box Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Opinion
The jury verdicts in favor of one of four similarly situated plaintiffs and in favor of defendant with respect to the other three plaintiffs, two of whom suffered undisputed property damage, are inconsistent ver[161]*161diets justifying a new trial as to all. See Thompson v. Iannuzzi, 403 Pa. 329, 169 A. 2d 777 (1961); Pascarella v. Pgh. Rwys. Co., 389 Pa. 8, 131 A. 2d 445 (1957). See also Kessler v. Matlack, 210 Pa. Superior Ct. 450, 233 A. 2d 592 (1967).
Orders granting new trials affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
277 A.2d 359, 443 Pa. 159, 1971 Pa. LEXIS 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gross-v-lockwood-folding-box-corp-pa-1971.