Practice — New trial — Inconsistent verdict — New trial as to an parties.
In this case, it was Held that jury verdicts in favor of one of four similarly situated plaintiffs and in favor of defendant with respect to the other three plaintiffs, two of whom had suffered undisputed property damage, were inconsistent verdicts justifying a new trial as to all.
Mr. Chief Justice BELL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice COHEN took no part in the decision of this case.
OPINION PER CURIAM, June 1, 1971:
The jury verdicts in favor of one of four similarly situated plaintiffs and in favor of defendant with respect to the other three plaintiffs, two of whom suffered undisputed property damage, are inconsistent verdicts justifying a new trial as to all. See Thompson v. Iannuzzi, 403 Pa. 329, 169 A.2d 777 (1961); Pascarella v. Pgh. Rwys. Co., 389 Pa. 8, 131 A.2d 445 (1957). See also Kessler v. Matlack, 210 Pa. Super. 450, 233 A.2d 592 (1967).
Orders granting new trials affirmed.
Mr. Chief Justice BELL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice COHEN took no part in the decision of this case.