Jones, H., Aplt. v. Ott, R.
191 A.3d 782
Pa.2018Background
- Plaintiff Helen Jones sued for negligence after her car was rear-ended by Ron Ott; she submitted proposed points for charge (including negligence per se) before trial and filed them with the prothonotary.
- At the charge conference no court reporter transcribed proceedings and the trial court made no on-the-record ruling on the proposed points; the jury instruction ultimately omitted negligence per se.
- After the court charged the jury, the trial judge asked counsel if there were any issues; Jones’ counsel responded, “I have no issues with the charge.” The jury returned a defense verdict.
- Jones filed a post-trial motion arguing the omission of negligence per se; the trial court denied relief and the Superior Court affirmed, finding waiver based on the lack of an on-the-record objection or transcribed conference.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to decide whether filing proposed points for charge plus a post-trial motion preserves a jury-charge challenge under Pa.R.C.P. 227.1 when there is no on-the-record trial ruling.
- The Supreme Court affirmed: a party must either lodge a contemporaneous on-the-record objection or have made requested points part of the record and obtained an explicit trial-court ruling on them (and then raise the issue in a post-trial motion); Jones also affirmatively waived by saying she had no issues with the charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing proposed points for charge and later raising the issue in a post-trial motion alone preserves a jury-charge challenge under Pa.R.C.P. 227.1 when there is no on-the-record ruling | Jones: filing points with prothonotary and raising in post-trial motion suffices to preserve the issue | Ott: preservation requires contemporaneous on-the-record objection so trial court can correct errors; mere filing gives no opportunity to correct | Held: Not sufficient alone. To preserve via points-for-charge, the points must be made part of the record and an explicit trial-court ruling on them must exist; otherwise the issue is waived |
| Whether an untranscribed in-camera charge conference can be used to preserve a jury-charge objection | Jones: any objection voiced at charge conference (even unrecorded) preserved issue | Ott: matters not in the record cannot be considered; unrecorded conference cannot preserve issue | Held: Objections not in the record are not considered; untranscribed conferences do not preserve error |
| Whether an affirmative statement of “no issues” after the charge waives any preserved or potential objections | Jones: had preserved issue earlier by filing points and post-trial motion; did not intend waiver | Ott: counsel’s on-the-record statement constitutes waiver of further objections | Held: Counsel’s explicit statement that there were “no issues with the charge” constituted affirmative waiver, barring relief |
| Proper standard/practice going forward to preserve charge objections under Pa.R.C.P. 226/227/227.1 | Jones: follow literal rule text—filing points suffices | Ott: require clearer on-the-record preservation to enable trial-court correction and appellate review | Held: Court requires either contemporaneous objection or (1) making requested points part of the record per Rule 226(a), (2) obtaining explicit trial-court ruling on those points, and (3) raising the issue in a post-trial motion; best practice includes transcribing charge conference or securing a written ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Broxie v. Household Fin. Co., 372 A.2d 741 (Pa. 1977) (party must submit point for charge or timely specific objection to preserve jury-charge issue)
- Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co., 322 A.2d 114 (Pa. 1974) (abrogated fundamental-error exception; requires timely objection to preserve)
- Brancato v. Kroger Co., 458 A.2d 1377 (Pa. Super. 1983) (preservation by filed points for charge where record showed trial court denied specific points)
- Meyer v. Union R.R. Co., 865 A.2d 857 (Pa. Super. 2004) (preservation where proposed points were submitted, record showed court refused the points, and issue raised post-trial)
- Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Wapner, 903 A.2d 565 (Pa. Super. 2006) (declined to find preservation absent an explicit trial-court ruling)
- SugarHouse HSP Gaming, L.P. v. Pa. Gaming Control Bd., 162 A.3d 353 (Pa. 2017) (discusses benefits of contemporaneous preservation and the objectives of timely objection)