*2 Argued Before JACOBS, June 1974. WATKINS, P.J., Spaeth, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Voort, der Van JJ. *3 Kramer,
Mitchell A. him and with Kapustin, Steven Salus, appellant. Kramer & for Paul, Joseph Manta, Edward R. with him and G. Doalc, appellee, LaBrum & for at No. 1691.
Lynn Detweiler, Campbell Swartz, L. Det- with him & weiler, appellee, for at No. 1494. 1975: Voort, der J., Van March April 14, 1966, appellant, Hamilton,
On David involved a motor vehicle accident between his own operated by appellee automobile and one Frank Gallo. allegedly injuries Hamilton suffered hos- back and was pitalized. August having 28, 1966, Hamilton, re- On Mr. operator municipal turned to work as of a street cleaning truck, This was involved in another accident. appellant’s second collision and was between the truck operated by agent appellee, truck an The Bulletin Company. result, allegedly again As Hamilton suffered injuries, serious back time him to be which this caused permanently disabled. eventually brought separate
Hamilton in tres- suits against pass and Prior to the trials of Gallo Bulletin. cases, appellant’s these counsel initiated discussions with agreement defense counsel which led to an with the approval, Court’s the two trials would be consoli- together jury. single judge dated and tried before a and parties agree trial, judge, All the the Honorable Maurice announced that all of Sporkin, damages, both introduced in both cases before the was sent jury. During trial, appel- the course of consolidated presented lant first his evidence as to both damages against of this at the conclusion Gallo. Almost presentation (appellant yet had not introduced some exhibits), appellee moved that the Court counsel completely and that sever his case from the Bulletin case given benefit his case alone and without the in the Bulletin for Bulle- case. Counsel joined request. contested tin Counsel for among requests. these After extended coun- discussions (which infra) fully, sel will be discussed more Court *4 plaintiff-appellant ruled that would all of the liability jury on in the Bulletin and that the evidence liability solely would then on the consider both cases question. defendant-appellees If either one both were liable, jury found then hear evidence and con- the damages. plaintiff-appellant sider issue of The then the completely severed, arguing moved that the cases that joinder longer the basis no motion was This existed. by denied the Court. proceeded
The defense in the case then on liabil- Gallo ity only parties and the Bulletin case was tried the on liability only. they jury The Court instructed the that completely disregard any damage were to evidence and only liability to consider defendant-appellee. as to each jury against The plaintiff-appellant returned verdicts and in defendants-appellees liability favor of on in both cases.
Appellant appeal raises several claims on in both However, except cases. for one claim which will be dis- fully herein, rely cussed more thorough we on dis- cussion, reasoning, and conclusions set forth in the ex- opinion cellent and extensive of the learned lower Court. analyzed The sole issue which will this appellant the claim of ruling that the lower erred in court jury liability that should consider alone in evidence cases, prior both consideration evidence damages in either case.
Appellant primarily argues prejudice there was severing permitting jury the issues and not to hear damage evidence on the Bulletin case to their con- sideration of Appellee argues in both cases. appellant presented had all his evidence as damages to both in the first case thus prejudice suffered no Appellee at least as to Gallo. Bulle- similarly tin supports the action of lower Court and argues, alia, solely inter prejudice claims inability due present damage to its Bulletin maintains, case which Bulletin shouldn’t liability. considered in event in its assessment conflicting Our review of arguments claims and leads us to conclude that the action of lower Court in rela- separation tion to jury’s of issues for the consideration and should correct be affirmed.
481
In the
issue,
guided
consideration of this
we are
in
large part by
Pennsylvania
Rule 213 of the
Rules Civil
of
provides
Procedure which
pertinent part: “(a)
in
When
involving
actions
question
a common
of law or
are
fact
pending
court,
before the
the court on
own
its
or
motion
any
on motion
party may
of
joint hearing
order a
or
any
trial of
or all the
actions, may
matters in issue in the
order all of the
consolidated,
may
actions
make such
concerning
orders
proceedings
therein as
avoid un
necessary
delay, (b)
costs or
The
in furtherance
court,
prejudice,
convenience
may,
or to avoid
on its own
any
motion or on
party,
motion of
separate
order a
any
action, claim,
cause of
counterclaim, set-off,
or
cross-suit,
any separate
or of
issue,
or of
number of
action,
causes of
claims, counterclaims, set-offs, cross-
suits, or
In addition,
many
issues.”
it has been held
times
the lower courts have broad discretion in
con
solidation, joinder and severance of
causes
action and
separate issues at
Sladek,
trial.
85,
See Balla
381
v.
Pa.
(1955) ; Ragano
112 A.2d
Socony
156
v.
Vacuum Oil
Company,
271,
(1954) ;
Pa.
In the plaintiff-appellant instant originally prompted the action which led to the consolidation of the Gallo and Bulletin ostensibly pre- claims at one trial — vent raising each defendant from in defense the dam- age separate in area trials that the other accident caused majority either all or a plaintiff’s damages. Appel- apparently lant felt that one would assess and award damages fair considering as a result of evidence as to injuries in both appellant produced cases. When damage case, evidence in the Gallo it showed that his own supported medical evidence contention that he had totally injuries recovered from sustained accident to the date of Bulletin In accident. circumstances, pertinent quote view of these it opinion: “In the at lower court’s rationale from its clearly bar, above, consolidation was con- as discussed (the parties due to issues of fact venient to all common damages plaintiff extent of suffered which were accident). plaintiff failed attributable to each When injuries suffered GALLO to *6 danger continuing, that were serious arose that accident prejudiced liability the be if case on in could GALLO disability injury considered in the of total climate pervade damages testimony the in BULLETIN. would original Yet the reason for consolidation remained be- cause, separately, the were cases tried Bulletin-defendant disability might attempt injury to show that the still picture presented, by plaintiff really in BULLETIN was GALLO, the in and result of accident Bulletin-defend- protection possibility plain- ant still needed from the attempt downplay inj tiff to in uries GALLO order to as the case.” We BULLETIN serious judge cannot find that it was unreasonable the jury to find a need to have one hear facts of both the damages. cases, necessary, apportion if and, to His re- initially fusal to sever the cases and decision to submit questions the of to the was not an abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.
Dissenting by Price, J.: respectfully I must dissent from the conclusion by majority. simply reached the I do so on the of basis Pa. . The court R.C.P. which states: “. . reciting conference, make an order taken the at the action pleadings, agree- the amendments allowed to and the by parties ments made con- as to matters sidered, limiting and the issues for trial to those not disposed agreements attorneys. admissions or Such order when entered subsequent shall control the course action prevent unless modified at the trial to injustice....” manifest
There can be no majority doubt as the states that parties agreed to approval this action with court to single judge consolidated trial jury, before a and and that all of the damages, both on and would be introduced in both cases before the jury. sent Courts, only not in this Commonwealth elsewhere, but historically agreement afforded such particularly between counsel approval and with court highest possible honor and effect in the trial of cases. my opinion, In erred, therefore, the lower court in modi- fying pre-trial agreement during the course of this my trial and opinion such an alteration cannot justified grounds on the prevent it was to mani- done injustice. I, therefore, fest would hold such reversal error, prejudice with or without judgment would reverse the grant of the lower court and new trials. join JJ., dissenting in this Hoffman,
Jacobs *7 opinion. Appellant.
Commonwealth Meo,