From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. Abdo

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Mar 24, 1952
87 A.2d 305 (Pa. 1952)

Opinion

March 24, 1952.

Appeals — Review — New trial — Verdict for defendant — Damages — Irrelevancy.

In reviewing the denial of a new trial after a verdict establishing defendant was not negligent, questions concerned with the issue of damages need not be considered.

Submitted January 8, 1952. Before DREW, C. J., STERN, STEARNE, BELL, CHIDSEY and MUSMANNO, JJ.

Appeal, No. 36, Jan. T., 1951, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, May T., 1949, No. 645, in case of Margaret Mary Thomas et vir. v. Nageeb J. Abdo et ux. Order affirmed.

Trespass for personal injuries. Before ROBINSON, J.

Verdict for defendants; order entered denying plaintiffs' motion for new trial. Plaintiffs appealed.

Edward M. Murphy and Murphy, Murphy Swoyer, for appellants.

James W. Scanlon and David J. Conroy, for appellees.


Margaret Mary Thomas was injured when she slipped on a banana peel on a sidewalk in front of defendants' property. The accident occurred on December 8, 1947, and on March 5, 1948, the middle finger of her left hand was amputated, allegedly as a result of the fall. The jury returned a verdict for defendants and plaintiffs have appealed from the order of the court below denying their motion for a new trial.

Three questions were raised in this appeal, two of which are concerned with the issue of damages. In view of the verdict that defendants were not negligent, these two questions are irrelevant and need not be considered here. Plaintiffs' last contention is that the trial judge failed to define legal cause in his charge to the jury. This is refuted by an examination of the record. In at least three places in his charge, the trial judge correctly and properly discussed causation in terms that the jury could readily understand. Anything further that he might have said would not have assisted the jury in its determination of the case.

On the record in this case, the jury's verdict was justified. There being no error of law in the trial of the case, the motion for a new trial was properly denied.

Order affirmed.


Summaries of

Thomas v. Abdo

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Mar 24, 1952
87 A.2d 305 (Pa. 1952)
Case details for

Thomas v. Abdo

Case Details

Full title:Thomas, Appellant, v. Abdo

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Mar 24, 1952

Citations

87 A.2d 305 (Pa. 1952)
87 A.2d 305

Citing Cases

Taylor v. Harrison Construction Co.

We perceive no merit in appellants' second contention that the trial judge erred ". . . in charging the jury…