Opinion ID: 338425
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Content of the Jury Charge

Text: 68 Having decided that a jury charge on the issue of normal use was appropriate, we must ascertain whether the content of the charge was proper. Greiner contends that the Judge confused normal use with the manner of handling the VW at the time of the accident, allowing the jury to find abnormal use and no defect if the auto was mishandled, or negligently handled, by Nickel. Greiner contends that, under the correct rule, the manner of use is irrelevant. The jury should have been instructed that, if the VW was being used for transport along the highway at the time, that would be sufficient to find the normal use predicate of defect. Greiner fails to cite any case in support of this precise contention. 69 Even if this were the law, we find that the charge gave Greiner in essence what she wanted. The Judge instructed the jury that they could find normal use, even if Nickel was mishandling the VW. In the Judge's words normal misuse would be sufficient to support a finding of defect. See Appendix, infra, at 23. His instruction is in keeping with Pennsylvania position in the forefront of liberal construction of the words of section 402A, Dyson, supra, 298 F.Supp. at 1070. We affirm with regard to this issue. 15 An appendix to this opinion contains the charge of the Court.