Saks v. Jeanes Hospital

408 A.2d 1153, 268 Pa. Super. 578, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2806
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided August 31, 1979·No. 2048, 2049 and 2050·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Since this case arose before the effective date of Pa.R.Civ.P., No. 4019(i), it was within the discretion of the trial judge to permit the expert witness to testify despite the fact that appellee had not included the witness’s name in its answer to an interrogatory propounded by appellants. See Nissley v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 435 Pa. 503, 259 A.2d 451 (1969); Moore v. Howard P. Foley Co., 235 Pa.Super. *580 310, 340 A.2d 519 (1975); see also Gill v. McGraw Electric Co., 264 Pa.Super. 368, 399 A.2d 1094 (1979). The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing the witness to testify. Appellee’s failure was not willful; appellants were informed before trial that the witness would be called; and the trial judge’s offer of a one day continuance so that the qualifications of the witness could be investigated was refused by appellants’ counsel.

Affirmed.

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

Saks v. Jeanes Hospital, 408 A.2d 1153, 268 Pa. Super. 578, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2806 (Pa. Ct. App. 1979).

408 A.2d 1153 (Saks v. Jeanes Hospital) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Werner v. Commonwealth
42 Pa. D. & C.3d 435 (Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, 1986)
Kaminski v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co.
487 A.2d 1340 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1985)
AUGUSTINE BY AUGUSTINE v. Delgado
481 A.2d 319 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1984)
Royster v. McGowen Ford, Inc.
439 A.2d 799 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1982)
McClain v. Carney
19 Pa. D. & C.3d 527 (Wyoming County Court of Common Pleas, 1981)
Nowosielski v. Kryzosiak
421 A.2d 703 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1980)