Court Opinion

ID: 9700819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:50:11.936592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:14.755533
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mb. Justice Bell:
I dissent for each and all of the following reasons:
(1) Rudisill’s testimony was properly admitted: Commonwealth v. Blankenstein, 81 Pa. Superior Ct. 340; but even if inadmissible, was harmless error. It was absolutely harmless because of the special finding of fact by the jury: “There was no pool of mycosheen or any other substance on defendant’s floor.”
(2) There was an unbridgeable gulf between plaintiff’s allegata and probata.
(3) There was no proof of knowledge by defendant of the alleged oil or any constructive notice.
(4) Defendant was entitled, under all the evidence, to a directed verdict in its favor.