Case Name: Evans et al. v. Porter, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1932-02-03
Citations: 306 Pa. 146
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 148
Parties: Evans et al. v. Porter, Appellant.
Judges: Before Frazer, C. J., Simpson, Kephart, Schaffer, Maxey and Drew, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 306
Pages: 146–148

Head Matter:
Evans et al. v. Porter, Appellant.
Argued January 5, 1932.
Before Frazer, C. J., Simpson, Kephart, Schaffer, Maxey and Drew, JJ.
February 3, 1932:
George Y. Meyer, of Meyer & Nunnink, with him Francis A. Wolf, for appellant.
Henry X. O’Brien and Thomas M. Marshall, Jr., for appellees, were not heard.

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
Plaintiffs sued in trespass to recover for injuries suffered by the minor plaintiff in an automobile accident, and defendant appeals from the order of the court below granting a new trial.
At the conclusion of the testimony in the lower court, defendant's point for binding instructions was affirmed, and a verdict directed in his favor. The opinion of the court in banc granting a new trial states: "After a careful consideration and review of the testimony in this case, we are of the opinion that the trial judge erred in affirming this point [for binding instructions] and should have submitted the case to the jury" to determine the question of defendant's negligence and the contributory negligence of the minor plaintiff. A supplementary opinion quoting evidence of various witnesses gives in more detail tlie court's reasons for concluding that a retrial should be had. Following our invariable rule, under such circumstances, we will not disturb an order granting a new trial, "except in cases where the record shows an unmistakable abuse of discretion": Lombardo v. Barilla, 302 Pa. 460, and cases there cited. In the appeal now before us the record fails to show such abuse.
The judgment is affirmed.