PER CURIAM.
Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court, No. 653 WAL 2011.
Prior report: Pa.Super., 29 A.3d 1158.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 23rd day of May, 2012, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is
GRANTED.
The issues are:
(1) Whether the Superior Court violated longstanding precedent and deviated from existing law by granting [respondents] a new trial based on a purportedly faulty “error in judgment” jury instruction in circumstances where [respondents] failed to object to the instruction at trial, and, accordingly, failed to preserve the issue for appeal[?]
(2) Whether the Superior Court contravened controlling precedent by not considering a trial court's jury charge in its entirety to determine whether a trial court's reference to the error-in-judgment concept was harmless and the charge in its entirety was a correct statement of law[?]
(3) Whether the Superior Court contravened controlling precedent by relying on its decision in Pringle v. Rapaport, [ ] 980 A.2d 159 (Pa.Super.2009) to vacate a verdict in circumstances where the instruction given by the trial court was a proper statement of the law even assuming Pringle applied[?]