Shelhamer v. John Crane, Inc.
58 A.3d 767
Pa. Super. Ct.2012Background
- Crane appeals a trial court order granting Shelhamer a new trial regarding Crane in a joint asbestos case.
- The original action included Jones and defendants B.F. Goodrich, Buffalo Pumps, Garlock, and Ingersoll Rand; Crane was a defendant.
- Jury verdicts in phase I found Shelhamer proved asbestos exposure caused mesothelioma; Crane’s product exposure was not shown.
- In phase II, interrogatories asked about exposure, defect, and factual causation; Answers conflicted with earlier phase I findings.
- The jury answered that Crane’s product was not exposed/defective yet found Crane’s product to be a factual cause of Shelhamer’s injury.
- No contemporaneous objections were made to the inconsistent verdict, and the verdict was entered with Crane not favored.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of inconsistency objection | Shelhamer argues the verdict was inconsistent and warranted a new trial. | Crane argues waiver; no timely objection was made to the inconsistency at trial. | Waiver bars post-trial relief for inconsistency; order reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co., 457 Pa. 255, 322 A.2d 114 (Pa. 1974) (requires timely objections to preserve post-trial issues)
- City of Philadelphia v. Gray, 534 Pa. 467, 633 A.2d 1090 (Pa. 1993) (post-trial challenges to special interrogatories waived if not objected at verdict)
- Straub v. Cherne Indus., 583 Pa. 608, 880 A.2d 561 (Pa. 2005) (continual objection requirement for post-trial relief)
- Criswell v. King, 575 Pa. 34, 834 A.2d 505 (Pa. 2003) (contends contemporaneous objection to inconsistency is required)