trial court acted appropriately in admonishing counsel after counsel repeatedly disregarded trial court’s prior ruling
How later courts described this case
- trial court acted appropriately in admonishing counsel after counsel repeatedly disregarded trial court’s prior ruling
- “[T]he absence of an objection by counsel to the court’s statement. .. constitutes a waiver of this particular objection.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PRICE, Judge,
concurring:
I join the majority opinion in all of its conclusions, but file this opinion only to express my conviction that the charge of the court below contravened the requirements of Hamil v. Bashline (Bashline II), 243 Pa.Super. 227 , 364 A.2d 1366 (1976) and Gradel v. Inouye, 252 Pa.Super. 392 , 381 A.2d 975 (1977) when it charged the jury that proximate causation entails a finding that the appellant's negligence was ". . . a substantial factor . . ." in causing appellee's damage. Further I wish to state that I do not agree in toto with the comments contained in footnote 22 (Slip Opinion P. 18) of the majority opinion as they relate to the expert testimony of appellee's witnesses.
I do, however, agree that appellant has waived the argument.
I join in affirming the judgment.