Court Opinion

ID: 9715145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:55:36.950248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:31.955092
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Bell:
I disagree with the Court’s order and opinion because they are in my judgment both unrealistic and unfair. The Court admits that it is not necessary for a defendant to be represented by an attorney; it is sufficient if he has an opportunity to employ one, and in a case like this, to make “an informed choice”. There is no decision, rule, principle or canon that requires the trial Judge under such circumstances to be the informant — only a moron would be uneonversant with or ignorant of the situation and the penalty with which the driver of the automobile was and is confronted. Canon 6 of Professional Ethics is wise and salutary if applied as a general rule, but virtually every rule is subject to some exception.*
A joint trial of two or several suits arising out of a collision between two or three automobiles or trolleys was designed, not to cause hardship or injustice but to expedite and promote justice. Such trials have frequently raised factual and legal questions and prob*238lems which have vexed and perplexed juries, trial courts and appellate Courts alike, and have at times resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Cf. Ratcliff v. Myers, 382 Pa. 196, 113 A. 2d 558; Byers v. Vargo, 389 Pa. 365, 133 A. 2d 163, Pascarella v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., 389 Pa. 8, 131 A. 2d 445.
For example, a poor man owns and is a passenger in an automobile which is driven by his wife. There is some evidence that it was being driven under his direction although he denies this. A collision occurs with another automobile owned and driven under the same circumstances. Each family engages a lawyer and each is convinced that the other driver is solely at fault. Cross suits are brought and each plaintiff is joined as a defendant in each suit. The suits are tried together and each lawyer explains to his client the legal risks and possibilities. Each family tells their attorney that they cannot afford to employ more than one lawyer. Why should the law or any canon compel each claimant to employ two lawyers — a total of six or eight lawyers in this simple case? Isn’t such a requirement impractical, unjust and ridiculous?
Notwithstanding the high motive which prompted the lower Court to grant a new trial, I believe that the grant of a new trial was unfair to plaintiffs Jedwabny and Stachowiez (the verdict winners), and for this reason, as well as for the above mentioned reasons, was a manifest abuse of discretion.

 This is an almost universally recognized truism — indeed it is exemplified in the majority opinion which quotes Canon 6 and the Scriptures to support the conclusion that Atkinson must have one lawyer in his capacity as plaintiff and another lawyer to represent him as defendant, and then admits that one lawyer could represent Atkinson in his capacity as plaintiff and as defendant if' Atkinson were informed of his .rights, risks and conflicting inters ests.