*3 ELLIOTT, (2) Before DEL Appellant, SOLE and FORD was a the defective condition JJ., CERCONE, Judge causing President factor in harm Mr. substantial (3) Jara, Emeritus. and Mr. not assume Jara did or, to each harm, unrepresented, record if they a su- risk of found there was shall include party. harm to Jara. The The notice perseding cause of the Mr. order, judg- favor copy molded the trial court in of the decree verdict was post-trial Appellees mo- Appellant. filed ment. filing and oral tions. After the of briefs (b) note in the prothonotary shall The argument, Appellees awarded a new were and, giving the notice docket damages appeal followed. only. trial on This judgment by en- confession when We affirm. tered, mailing required no- Preliminarily, timeli- we must address the tice and documents. 26, 1996, appeal. of this On November ness *4 by prac complicated This issue opinion the trial court issued an and order of County Allegheny in with in accordance tice request granting Appellees’ post- for court (June 24,1993) Administrative Order No. awarding new trial on the trial relief and a of the re prothonotary which relieves damages only. Copies opinion of of the issue litigants copy a of sponsibility sending of to judge to order faxed from the were has been delivered an of court which order day. docketing parties on that The state- directly to the liti by judge a or the court ment in certified record indicates on No- However, order gants. this administrative 27,1996, the trial court filed with the vember rule, not, excuse the nor could local does Prothonotary Allegheny County opinion duty to note prothonotary of the on 26,1996. order of dated November court date that notice was mailed. docket the However, docketing pro- in the order the judge thonotary to that the sent a failed note appeal filing The for an does time copy opinion parties. and order to the (1) begin until the order has been not to run 9, 1996, It was not until December that a (2) docket, and upon appropriate entered appears on the that notice notation docket proper in appears a notation the docket appeal A was sent. notice of was filed Janu- entry given concerning the of notice has been 3, 1997, ary days more after the than 30 Pa. Yeaple Yeaple, 485 the order. v. 27, 1996, entry of of a the November award (1979). Therefore, pe appeal A.2d 1022 entry days of new trial but within 30 on begin in to run until riod this case did not parties. of to docket notice 9, 1996, the the docket re December date Pennsylvania Appel- Rule of Pursuant parties. Given flects notice was sent 311(a)(6), awarding an order late Procedure days of that within appeal was filed this appealable. Although, trial is Pa.R.A.P. new date, timely. it is 301(a) states: following is- Appellant presents the broad appealable of a shall be No order court into subissues: which turn are divided sues upon appro- until it has entered been (1) judgment Appellant is entitled to whether priate court... docket the lower by as trial jury’s on the molded verdict 108(b) provides: Pa.R.A.P. (2) court; entitled to a whether entry of an order in a matter The date (3) liability; whether the on new trial subject Pennsylvania to the Rules of Civil in rul- committed reversible error trial court day which the Procedure shall be the evidentiary matters. ing on certain makes in the docket that clerk the notation post- file a motion for Appellant did not entry given notice of of the order has been to Pa.R.C.P. 227.1. pursuant trial relief 236(b). required by Pa.R.C.P as evidentiary questioning the Those matters requires: Pa.R.C.P. brought were rulings court errors and trial (a) immediately prothonotary The shall first time for the to the trial court’s attention ordinary give mail written notice 1925(b) Thus, al- statement. entry of a new trial though Appellees requested had (1) only, Appellant ... not damages did limited to (2) subsequent asking the for Any order, motion court judg- or file a other decree rather of a new trial attorney relief party’s the alternative
ment to each than a new trial to damages. limited tion an Pa. error of law that controlled the 227.1(c)provides Constantino, R.C.P. part: Jones outcome the ease. ... party If timely post-trial has filed a motion, any party may post- other file JNOV, Appellees’ granting motion for days
trial motion within ten the filing after incorrectly it the trial court concluded intro- post-trial of the first motion. negligence concepts product this duced into by charging action on su- question The of cautionary filing of perseding by including special cause and post-trial preserve motions in order to issues interrogatory regarding superseding cause appeal under unique these circumstances given which not should have been yet has appellate to be decided an court in this Commonwealth. the Rules While Com gave following charge The court may mittee have for parties intended all jury: post-trial file motions in order permit anyone’s ... although as I carelessness trial court to consider all issues of error at ago indicated is not awhile consid- time, the same will we not find waiver by you ered strict cases such as Here, issues *5 instance. this, may the actions of some individuals counsel raised the issues in its Statement of causing have been so in Mr. involved Complained Appeal Matters of on under Pa. injuries they supersede Jara’s that R.A.P.1925(b) and trial court addressed aspect any safety causational of lack of opinion 3, those in issues its dated June system. devices on the belt It is 1997.1 up prove you to the defendant to that employer, Mr. the actions of Jara’s Beaver First, Appellant argues that the tri Valley Supply, or Builders the actions of granting judgment al court erred in notwith co-employees, his Mr. Barlow or Mr. Cuch- standing the in Appellees. verdict of favor la, or the actions of Mr. Jara himself were reviewing In granting an order a motion for injuries. superseding a Mr. cause of Jara’s judgment verdict, notwithstanding the we - in prove The Defendant order to must must determine whether there was sufficient cause, superseding sustain the defense of competent evidence to sustain the verdict prove the defendant that the failure must Rappaport Family Partnership Samuel v. of or Mr. Jara Mr. Barlow to turn off or Bank, Meridian 194, Pa.Super. 441 657 A.2d keep off the master electrical switch in the (1995). doing, Superior 17 so Court pushing trailer or Mr. Chuchla’s must light consider the evidence in the most button would have caused both the belt to winner, favorable to the verdict must who be and start Mr. Jara to be on the belt when given every the benefit of infer reasonable appropriate adequate it if started even and therefrom, any ence of arising fact and con safety supplied by devices had been flict in the evidence must in be resolved his manufacturer. Hospital, favor. Wasserman Reed&Fifth you proved If that has 563, (1995). decide defendant 442 A.2d 660 600 preponderance of a the evidence that Judgment notwithstanding the can verdict be were a substantial those human actions only entered if the movant is entitled to injuries fall and and cause Mr. Jara’s his judgment a or if as matter law superseded that the causal those actions no such that two reasonable minds could devices, safety lack then effect disagree that the outcome should have been plaintiff. defendant would not be liable favor of the movant. Moure v. in rendered Raeuchle, However, you 529 Pa. if find that those human actions, obviously bring- grant We will reverse a lower court’s while involved judgment notwithstanding of a ing denial were not a about the accident substan- only verdict when find an abuse a we of discre- tial cause of the accident or were not (1) We ages invite Rules Committee to consider court order to afford cautionary post-trial opportunity upon possible whether rule motions should be trial errors (2) opposing possessing jurisdiction pre- verdict still filed a winner where the while and requested party possible appeal. has new trial limited dam- serve issues for
793 First, law in it well-founded safety superseded the lack of cause which negligence questions devices, Pennsylvania defense not been made has liability products out, be introduced in not the defendant liable should would remain negligence can Evidence of user’s plaintiffs. actions. product, excuse defective not be used to 8, 1294-1296. N.T. Volume recov negligence used to reduce nor can interrogatories given to the special The Development by comparing fault. Kimco ery jury their answers follow: Outlets, 536 Pa. Carpet Corp. D’s v. Michael you con- 1. Do find that the trailerized (1993). Here, hindsight, A.2d 603 hands veyor was defective when it left the improperly it court concluded that the trial Rexworks, Inc.? of defendant superseding cause and charged jury YES: 10 NO: interrogatory number incorrectly submitted court admitted that 4 to the The “no,” your question If you answered interroga submitting giving charge its foreperson are concluded. The deliberations give tory 4 to the it failed number sign Special Interrogatories and should these Development Corp. weight proper to Kimco you should return to the Court Room. Carpet v. Michael D’s Outlets. you “yes,” question If answered defective condition substantial factor development of Throughout plaintiff harm to Sotero bringing about the Supreme jurisprudence, our strict Jara? negligence con adamant that Court has been NO: 0 YES: in a strict action. cepts place have no “no,” question your If you answered however, say plaintiffs that a This is not to *6 foreperson deliberations are concluded. The always case irrele product in a is conduct sign Special Interrogations and should these Inquiry plaintiffs into use the vant. you should return to the Court Room. may as it relates to product be relevant liability plaintiff in a strict causation. A apply, If the above instruction does not product was de prove action must that the question you should continue to fective, proximate defect was a and that the you question “yes,” do 3. If answered injury. v. Har plaintiffs Madonna cause of Jara, you plaintiff, find that the Sotero (Pa.Su Davidson, Inc., ley involved, knowledge with actual of the risk per.1998). risk harm? assumed the YES: 0 NO: 12 .negligent conduct not A user’s you question “yes,” your If answered product if the contributed relevant defect foreperson deliberations are concluded. The However, any way to harm. where sign Special Interrogatories these should the acci to show that defense offers evidence you Room. If the should return to Court plain solely result of dent at issue was apply, you should instruction does not above conduct, product, it and not a defective tiffs question continue to 4. proving causa admissible for is relevant and supersed- Id. you 4. Do find that there was a tion. plaintiff ing the harm to Sotero cause of However, circumstances this Jara? Madonna different from those case are YES: 10 NO: There, negligent con Harley Davidson. “yes,” your question If you answered cause of the plaintiff the sole duct of the was foreperson are concluded. The deliberations case, In of Mr. Jara’s this accident. sign Special Interrogatories should these party of a third was or the conduct conduct
you
return to the Court Room.
should
result
prove
was the
the accident
offered
“no,”
question 4
state
you
If
answered
cause, namely someone
superseding
of a
by:
damages
sustained
the amount
However, that ac
moving.
the belt
started
$_
plaintiff
Jara
Sotero
a.
product
question
irrelevant to
tion was
defective,
$_
product not been
Had the
defect.
plaintiff Alicia Jara
b.
warning
Mr.
awarding
money
Jara would have had
or been
Court’s error from
'him
provided
safe
location once the belt
damages.
was
Thus,
activated.
it could not be established
Supplemental Opinion, 6/3/97,p. 4.
solely
that the accident was
a result of Mr.
interrogatory
If
had
number 4
not been
Rather,
Jara’s or another’s conduct.
as not-
submitted,
jury
would have determined
jury,
product
ed
defect was a
damages. Consequently,
the issue of
contributing
substantial
factor
to Mr.
properly granted
trial court
a new trial limit-
injury.
circumstances,
Jara’s
Under these
it
damages.
ed to
question
was an error to submit the
of su-
addition, Appellant presents
In
other
perseding
jury. Consequently,
cause to the
claims in an
this
effort
convince
court that
correctly granted
trial court
JNOV.
necessary.
Appel-
new trial on
Next, Appellant
raises
broad is
lant
contends
trial court failed to decide
sue that
it is entitled
a new trial
on Appellees’
for a
alternative motion
new trial
liability. Appellant claims the erroneous in
required
Pennsylvania
as
under
Rule of Civil
charge
jury
clusion
regarding
227.1(e).2
Procedure
This issue is meritless.
superseding
requires
causes
new
on The trial court held that a new trial was
damages.
as well as
The normal
required
damages.
but
limited as to
practice
granting
grant
a new trial is to
it
correspond-
The order of the trial court and
against
generally
parties
all
on all issues.
ing opinions adequately satisfy
require-
Where the issues are interwoven and cannot ment under the rule.
separated
injustice
without
to one of the
argue
attempts
also
parties,
party
permit
the other
not be
should
trial court
committed numerous errors
ted to select for retrial
issues
decided
failing
several
instruct
re
against
upon
rehearing
him and
treat
quested points
charge
for
regarding causa
those issues decided in
favor
his
as settled.
result,
deprivation
tion.
it
As a
claims a
Houdaille,
Eck
v. Powermatic
However,
process.
due
brief
178,
However, join having majority’s I reasoning reviewed all of the in all presented by respects Appellant, except join issues I cannot we find it one. necessary portion following majority’s reasoning include the discussion which concerning arguments. these waived would hold that: so doing, competent we are mindful that rele us, In the case Mr. before Jara was having probative vant evidence gen value is required part employment, as of his erally appeal admissible and this court on perform maintenance work on the con- large will accord a measure discretion to vey[o]r. suggest To that Mr. Jara was regarding the trial court its admission or required performing between his choose Power, Engle exclusion. See West Penn product duties or use the defective would Co., permit by Appellant, wrong, its own deny right privilege Mr. Jara the First, photo excluded from evi Therefore, employment. his he could not depicts a power dence lock-out the main voluntarily assume risk as panel for the which the accident suggests. employee, an doing Where happened. The pho trial court excluded the job, required equipment use as fur- to DX-22F was no testimony because there employer, nished defense to substantiate that the switch box in the employee required unavailable. An who is photo actually place the switch box at equipment use certain in the course Consequently, the time of the accident. employment his equip- and who uses that aptly court trial there was no concluded foun ment employer as no directed has dation for exhibit prop admission of the encountering choice in a risk inherent erly excluded this evidence. Therefore, that equipment. although the charged court on the doctrine of as- respect With to the admission of evi risk, sumption of it was to do horns, error pertaining dence to alarm which in so.[Footnote] indicating business cluded records *9 purchaser of the ordered alarm today we [Footnote] The conclusion reach ne- designed and that horns the manufacturer gates our the fact need to discuss conveyor, alarm horns to be added has failed to evidence of Mr. Jara's introduce encountering was no there establish that a voluntariness in the risk. This part Appellant’s proof seeking burden sent, sent, type horn was what of horn was raise this affirmative defense. actually horn whether sent was installed. Majority opinion at 795. Likewise, the trial court did not abuse its My preventing authority discretion evidence from research has found no reaching support parties such a broad rule1 and the denied, 611, (1995), Long Hydrau appeal While it v. 1. is true that in Norriton Pa. 674 A.2d lics, Inc., 532, (1996), posed question A.2d 1089 this court wheth- argued Rath- have not briefed or this issue.
er, properly I instruct- believe the trial court risk, assumption
ed the
therefore, appellant’s argument that a differ- required
ent instruction was must fail. Pennsylvania,
COMMONWEALTH of
Appellee, DAYS, Appellant.
Bernadette
Superior Pennsylvania. Court of July 1998.
Submitted Sept.
Filed *10 inappropriate summary judgment was voluntarily it is a found that er can be faced where a risk risk perform, of the voluntariness part job employee because issue an must knowledge were for plaintiff’s of the risk no au- and the on this basis and case was not decided simply thority The court is otherwise cited.