Court Opinion

ID: 9761742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:52:47.964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:25.964214
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
While I find myself in accord with the majority’s resolution of the substantive aspects of this litigation, I wish to reiterate my view that a general exception should not preserve on appeal alleged errors in a charge where, by timely special exception, counsel could have requested the court to correct this error below. See Lambert & Intreri, Inc. v. Holiday Motor Hotel, Inc., 428 Pa. 299, 301-02, 236 A. 2d 804, 805 (1968) (concurring opinion) ; Lobalzo v. Varoli, 422 Pa. 5, 7-10, 220 A. 2d 634, 636-37 (1966) (concurring opinion). It is only where the error below could not be corrected that I believe a general exception is sufficient; it is thus irrelevant to me whether the error below was “fundamental” for, the more fundamental the error, the more incumbent it is upon counsel to call this matter to the attention of the court below.