Opinion
October 7, 1964.
January 5, 1965.
Appeals — Review — New trial.
An order refusing a new trial will not be reversed in the absence of a finding of an abuse of discretion or an error of law which controlled the outcome of the case.
Before BELL, C. J., MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.
Appeal, No. 213, March T., 1964, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Jan. T., 1960, No. 96, in case of Robert Cinciripini v. Harmony Short Line Motor Transportation Company. Judgment affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries. Before PRICE, JR., J.
Verdict entered for defendant, plaintiff's motion for new trial refused and judgment entered on the verdict. Plaintiff appealed.
Roslyn M. Litman, with her Litman Litman, for appellant. Wallace E. Edgecombe, with him Royston, Robb, Leonard, Edgecombe Miller, for appellee.
Appellant suffered serious personal injuries when, on August 25, 1959, an automobile driven by him was involved in an intersection collision with a bus owned by appellee and operated by its employee. A jury trial resulted in a verdict for appellee, after which appellant's motion for new trial was refused and judgment entered on the verdict of the jury; this appeal followed.
Appellant raises seven main contentions in seeking a new trial which, with their sub-contentions, amount to some twelve trial errors allegedly committed by the trial court. We have often stated that on an appeal from the refusal of a new trial, we will not reverse unless we find an abuse of discretion or an error of law which controlled the outcome of the case. Chambers v. Montgomery, 411 Pa. 339, 192 A.2d 355 (1963); Nelson v. Barclay Motors, 414 Pa. 633, 202 A.2d 48 (1964); Williams v. Phila. Trans. Co., 415 Pa. 370, 203 A.2d 665 (1964).
We have carefully reviewed the voluminous trial record and each of appellant's contentions and conclude that the alleged errors, individually or cumulatively, fail to meet the standard by which we are bound. In essence, the verdict of the jury was fully justified by the evidence in the case, and no abuse of discretion or error of law controlling the outcome has been demonstrated.
Judgment affirmed.