Leech v. Jones
This text of 218 A.2d 722 (Leech v. Jones) 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
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
218 A.2d 722, 421 Pa. 1, 1966 Pa. LEXIS 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leech-v-jones-pa-1966.