Leech v. Jones

218 A.2d 722, 421 Pa. 1, 1966 Pa. LEXIS 601
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 19, 1966·No. Appeal, 21·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Opinion

Pee Curiam,

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

Leech v. Jones, 218 A.2d 722, 421 Pa. 1, 1966 Pa. LEXIS 601 (Pa. 1966).

218 A.2d 722 (Leech v. Jones) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co.
322 A.2d 114 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1974)
Commonwealth v. Butler
272 A.2d 916 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1971)
Commonwealth v. Jennings
274 A.2d 767 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1971)
Herron v. Silbaugh
260 A.2d 755 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1970)
Commonwealth v. Sisak
259 A.2d 428 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1969)
Commonwealth v. Williams
248 A.2d 301 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1968)
Geesey v. Albee Pennsylvania Homes, Inc.
235 A.2d 176 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1967)