Court Opinion

ID: 9731096
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:33:05.970784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:13.168476
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mb. Justice Robeets:
There is no doubt that a seven year delay between the completion of a non jury trial and the rendition of a general verdict thereon is shockingly excessive. The majority well expresses my feeling of strong disapproval. Unlike the majority, however, I feel that the delay constitutes a denial of due process and requires the grant of a new trial.
One of the basic reasons for holding a trial is to resolve disputed factual questions. The primary responsibility for this task is placed on the trier of fact. It is argued, and I think correctly, that having heard the testimony and seen the witnesses the trier of fact is in the best position to weigh the probative value of the evidence. In accordance with this belief we accord such findings great weight and are reluctant to reach different conclusions on the basis of cold records.
I think it clear that appellant was denied its right to have its evidence received and judged in this kind of a proceeding. It is impossible that the trier of fact— here the trial judge—could have remembered very much if anything of the evidence offered at trial. His decision was in effect rendered on a cold record. I would analogize the situation in this case to those instances in which a trier of fact dies after the conclusion of the trial and before rendition of a decision. In those cases it is required that the case be retried, even though a complete record of the trial may exist. Carlsson v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Company, 417 Pa. 356, 207 A. 2d 759 (1965) ; 48 C.J.S. Judges, §56 (b).
I note that the disposition of this ease depended entirely on the resolution of disputed factual issues. The *494trial judge said in his opinion that “. . . the court deems it unnecessary to cite legal authority as the issues involved are totally factual and the trier of fact resolved these issues against plaintiff . . . and in favor of the defendant . . . .” Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, December Term 1956, No. 902, April 18, 1969.
I do not see how we can say that the appellant received a complete trial. I would vacate the judgment and remand for a new trial.
Mr. Justice Cohen joins in this dissent.