*1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT JOHN STAPAS, : No. 123 WAL 2017

: Petitioner : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from : the Order of the Superior Court v. :

: : GIANT EAGLE, INC., A PENNSYLVANIA :

ENTITY; GIANT EAGLE, INC., T/D/B/A :

GETGO FROM GIANT EAGLE,A :

PENNSYLVANIA ENTITY; GIANT EAGLE :

INC., T/D/B/A SOUTHSIDE GETGO, A :

PENNSYLVANIA ENTITY; NADEEN :

MCSHANE, AN INDIVIDUAL; GETGO :

PARTNERS SOUTH, A PENNSYLVANIA :

ENTITY; GETGO PARTNERS SOUTH- :

MARYLAND, LLC, A PENNSYLVANIA :

ENTITY; AND GETGO HOLDINGS, LLP, :

A PENNSYLVANIA ENTITY, :

: Respondents : ORDER PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of September, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

a. Does the Superior Court’s decision to reverse the trial court’s

finding of waiver, despite Giant Eagle’s failure to object to flawed jury instructions, flawed verdict slip and/or the problematic verdict, all of which contributed to the error complained of on appeal, conflict with this Court’s holding in Straub v. Cherne Indus. , 583 Pa. 608, 880 A.2d 561 (2005), a case not considered by the Superior Court?

b. Does the Superior Court’s decision to excuse Giant Eagle’s

failures to object to flawed jury instructions, flawed verdict slip and/or a problematic verdict, merely because the appeal is styled as a “challenge to the weight of the evidence,” conflict with the timely objection requirement of Dilliplaine v.

Lehigh Valley Trust Co. , 457 Pa. 255, 322 A.2d 114 (1974)?

[123 WAL 2017] - 2