From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Joannides v. Norris

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Feb 1, 1940
11 A.2d 139 (Pa. 1940)

Opinion

January 10, 1940.

February 1, 1940.

Practice — New trial — Charge — Credibility of witness.

An order granting a new trial in an action of trespass for wrongful death, for the sole reason that the trial judge felt that he had not properly instructed the jury as to its duty in passing upon the credibility of the testimony of a doctor called on behalf of plaintiff and that justice would best be served by a new trial, was held not to constitute an abuse of discretion.

Argued January 10, 1940.

Before SCHAFFER, C. J., MAXEY, DREW, LINN and PATTERSON, JJ.

Appeal, No. 316, Jan. T., 1939, from order of C. P. No. 5, (tried in C. P. No. 6) Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1936, No. 1372, in case of Sonia Joannides, Administratrix, v. Joseph B. Norris. Order affirmed.

Trespass for personal injuries. Before BOK, P. J.

Verdict for plaintiff in sum of $5,500. New trial granted. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned was order granting new trial.

James F. Masterson, with him Robert T. Brown, for appellant.

Thomas E. Comber, Jr., for appellee.


This is an appeal from the order of the court below granting a new trial in an action of trespass to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's husband. The new trial was granted for the sole reason that the trial judge felt that he had not properly instructed the jury as to its duty in passing upon the credibility of the testimony of a doctor called on behalf of plaintiff. In his opinion, the judge states he thinks justice is best served by a new trial. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion.

Order affirmed.


Summaries of

Joannides v. Norris

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Feb 1, 1940
11 A.2d 139 (Pa. 1940)
Case details for

Joannides v. Norris

Case Details

Full title:Joannides, Admrx., Appellant, v. Norris

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Feb 1, 1940

Citations

11 A.2d 139 (Pa. 1940)
11 A.2d 139

Citing Cases

Seidel v. Yeadon Borough

See also Muroski v. Hnath, 392 Pa. 233, 139 A.2d 902. The presumption is that the trial court was justified…

Mohr v. Plotkin

See also Muroski v. Hnath, 392 Pa. 233, 139 A.2d 902. The presumption is that the trial court was justified…