432 Pa. 243 | Pa. | 1968
Opinion by
Jacob Granowitz, the appellant, was the owner of improved real estate, which was totally condemned on
The only asserted assignment of error is that the court below erred in refusing to admit evidence at trial of the amount of an offer made to purchase the premises “in 1962, 1963 or 1964.” Granowitz does not here, nor did he in his motion for a new trial below, maintain that the jury’s award was inadequate. Under such circumstances, Rankin v. McCurry, 402 Pa. 494, 166 A. 2d 536 (1961) is controlling.
In Rankin, supra, at 494, 495, we said: “The appellants alleged significant errors in the charge concerning the issue of damages, but they did not demonstrate or even attempt to demonstrate that their recovery was adversely affected by the alleged errors____
“It is well-settled that error in the abstract is not sufficient to warrant a retrial. Siegfried v. Lehigh Valley Transit Co., 334 Pa. 346, 349, 6 A. 2d 97 (1939). A verdict winner complaining of trial errors to secure a new trial must convince the trial court that the verdict in his favor did not cure the errors and that the errors produced an unjust result.”
Judgment affirmed.