Saks v. Jeanes Hospital

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Saks v. Jeanes Hospital

408 A.2d 1153, 268 Pa. Super. 578, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2806

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedAugust 31, 1979

Docket2048, 2049 and 2050

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 408 A.2d 1153 (Saks v. Jeanes Hospital) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

408 A.2d 1153, 268 Pa. Super. 578, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saks-v-jeanes-hospital-pasuperct-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack