Case ID: pa_348/html/0113-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Burton v. Morvay, Appellant.
    Argued October 15, 1943.
    Before Maxey, C. J., Drew, Linn, Stern, Patterson and Stearne, JJ.
    
      Franklin B. Eosbach, of Eosbach, Good & Fischer, for appellant.
    
      John B. Brooks, of Brooks, Gurtse & Silin, for appellee.
    November 22, 1943:
   Per Curiam,

This is an action in trespass for damages for personal injuries sustained by a pedestrian struck by the truck of appellant while crossing Market Street in Union City, Pennsylvania, between intersections. The jury returned a verdict for appellant. This appeal is from the order of the court below granting appellee’s motion for a new trial.

We will not reverse the action of a lower court on the matter of a new trial except for a question of law assigned as the sole reason for its action or when such action amounts to a palpable abuse of discretion: Reese v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co., 336 Pa. 299, 300; Edwards v. Crawford, 328 Pa. 449, 450; Reiser v. Smith, 328 Pa. 292; Bailey v. C. Lewis Lavine, Inc., 302 Pa. 273, 277. “Tbe presumption is that tbe trial court was justified in granting tbe new trial even when tbe reason given therefor is an insufficient reason unless tbe court expressly states that it is tbe only reason”: Bailey v. C. Lewis Lavine, Inc., supra, 277.

After a review of tbe record we are of opinion that no palpable or manifest error or abuse of discretion has been committed by tbe court below.

Order affirmed.