# Martin v. Recker

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 13, 1988 · 380 Pa. Super. 527

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9706469

## Case

- **Full name:** William C. MARTIN, III and Louise Martin, His Wife, v. Robert R. RECKER, Individually and D/B/A Recker Transfer Company, Appellant; William C. MARTIN, III and Louise Martin, His Wife, v. Linda RONSTADT, Peter Asher Management, Inc., a Corporation, Jess S. Morgan & Co., Inc., a Corporation, DiCeasare/Engler/Stanley Theater Company, a Corporation Clark Transfer Company, Inc. a Corporation Showco, Inc., Mercy Hospital of Pittsburgh, a Nonprofit Corporation. Appeal of SHOWCO, INC. William C. MARTIN, III and Louise Martin, His Wife, Appellants, v. Robert R. RECKER, Individually and D/B/A Recker Transfer Company; William C. MARTIN, III, and Louise Martin, His Wife, Appellants, v. Linda RONSTADT, Peter Asher Management, Inc., a Corporation Jess S. Morgan & Co., Inc., a Corporation, DiCeasare/Engler/Stanley Theater Company a Corporation, Clark Transfer Company, Inc., a Corporation, Showco, Inc., Mercy Hospital of Pittsburgh, a Nonprofit Corporation
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 13, 1988
- **Citations:** 380 Pa. Super. 527; 552 A.2d 668; 1988 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3727
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Montgomery
- **Judges:** Del Sole, Popovich and Montgomery
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9706469

## Opinion text

MONTGOMERY, Judge
concurring and dissenting:
Although I concur in the majority’s disposition of the issues raised by the Defendant-Appellants Showco and Recker, I dissent from that portion of the opinion which resolves the sole issue raised by the Martins in their cross-appeal. In my judgment, it is not necessary for us to reach this issue as the Martins do not wish to press the issue in the event the cross-appellants are denied relief.
In the Martins’ brief, it is written: “In the event a new trial is granted to Defendants, Plaintiffs request that they be granted a new trial and be permitted to introduce *545 evidence of Plaintiffs wage loss and medical expenses.” (Emphasis in original.) Also, in their conclusion at page 82 of their brief, the Martins write:
In the event this matter is remanded for a new trial as prayed for by Appellant, Showeo, Inc., William C. Martin, III, and Louise Martin pray that they be awarded a new trial and that they be permitted to introduce evidence of Mr. Martin’s wage loss and medical expense suffered as a result of the accident giving rise to the within action.
In my view, these statements are sufficiently specific for us not to reach the Martins’ no-fault issue. This is especially true since the award of a new trial has been granted by the majority solely because of the resolution of the issue raised by the Martins. Forcing the Martins to retry their case, when they are perfectly willing to accept the verdict awarded by the jury, will expose them to further unnecessary delay and significant unwarranted pressure to settle their claims with the defendants. Additionally, I find no reason to increase the burden of an already over-burdened trial court docket.
I would, therefore, affirm the judgment entered on the verdict and dismiss the cross-appeal by the Martins.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9706469. Public record. Not legal advice.