# Smith v. Shaffer

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · September 25, 1986 · 511 Pa. 421

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9754483

## Case

- **Full name:** Shirley SMITH, Appellee, v. Cloyd J. SHAFFER, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 25, 1986
- **Citations:** 511 Pa. 421; 515 A.2d 527; 1986 Pa. LEXIS 859
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hutchinson
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Papadakos, Hutchinson
- **Cited by:** 27 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/9754483

## Opinion text

HUTCHINSON, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. When considering a motion for a new trial, a trial judge, of course, should not merely substitute his judgment for the jury’s. We have stated that:
A new trial should be awarded on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence only when the jury’s verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice and the award of a new trial is imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to prevail.
Burrell v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 438 Pa. 286, 289 , 265 A.2d 516, 518 (1970). Nevertheless, the decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial is within the trial court’s discretion. Austin v. Ridge, 435 Pa. 1 , 255 A.2d 123 (1969). Indeed, we have held that it is the duty of the trial court which heard the witnesses to grant a motion for new trial if it believes the jury’s verdict is capricious or against the weight of the evidence. Burchard v. Seber, 417 Pa. 431 , 207 A.2d 896 (1965).
The HLA test is well respected and authoritative. One commentator has called it “too probative to be ignored.” 1 In holding such tests admissible, but not conclusive, Superi- or Court discussed the test’s reliability. It noted that such tests have other common applications such as matching *429 organ donors and recipients. Turek v. Hardy, 312 Pa.Superior Ct. 158, 458 A.2d 562 (1983). It is thus apparent that the medical profession relies on it in matters of life or death. Yet the majority holds a trial judge abuses his discretion if he grants a new trial because a jury ignored it.
The expert witness who presented the test results was qualified and his testimony is persuasive, if not conclusive. The trial judge had an opportunity to see and hear the witnesses. We lack this advantage. Given the strength of the expert’s testimony and the less objectively reliable testimony of the other witnesses, I would defer to Common Pleas’ judgment. I believe our trial judges in general and this one in particular exercise their duty in regard to new trial motions responsibly and conscientiously.
Thus, I would affirm Superior Court.
. McCormick on Evidence 621 (E. Cleary, 3d ed. 1984).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9754483. Public record. Not legal advice.