Court Opinion

ID: 9707032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:59:18.054476+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:27.240489
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell:
I dissent.
Statements by a Judge to a jury in the absence of counsel, and in answer to a jury’s request, do not constitute reversible error or justify a new trial, unless the communication from the Judge amounted to an instruction to the jury, as that term has always been used and understood, and constituted prejudice to one or both of the parties. Yarsunas v. Boros, 423 Pa. 364, 223 A. 2d 696 (Dissenting Opinion); Kersey Manufacturing Company v. Rozic, 422 Pa. 564, 222. A. 2d 713 (Dissenting Opinion); Gould v. Argiro, 422 Pa. 433, 220 A. 2d 654 (Dissenting Opinion).
In this particular case, the Court merely replied to the question of the jury as to whether or not their *618verdict figure was to be placed on both verdict papers or to be split individually. To this the trial Judge replied: “If you find Defendant ‘A! negligent then you have a duty of fixing the extent of ‘A’s’ liability. If you find Defendant ‘B’ also negligent then you must fix the damages to which the Plaintiff is entitled from Defendant ‘B’ ”. Clearly, this answer was so innocu: ous, and non-prejudicial, so as not to justify a new trial and thereby substantially increase litigation, which we are constantly striving to reduce.
The majority’s reliance upon my Opinion in Glendenning v. Sprowls, 405 Pa. 222, is clearly inapposite. In every case a Judge’s opinion must be considered in the light of and in the connection of the facts of that particular case. So considered, my Opinion in Glendenning is, I repeat, clearly inapposite, distinguishable and inapplicable. That was a case in which the Judge’s actions could not possibly be justified, and prejudice might easily have resulted and have influenced the jury’s verdict. In Q-lendenning, the Judge visited the jury room no less than six times and allowed a juror to leave the jury room in the company of the Judge to telephone the juror’s allegedly jealous wife. However, the facts in that case are so dissimilar from the situation in the case at bar so as to compel a different result. For just as Mr. Argo must proceed through life blindly, so has the majority blinded justice by the order of a new trial.
Mr. Justice Musmanno joins in this dissenting Opinion.