Court Opinion

ID: 9695617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:25:28.868446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:14.977045
License: Public Domain

*521ROWLEY, Judge,
concurring:
I join in the majority’s opinion insofar as it concludes that the jury charge given by the trial court in the instant case included an incorrect statement of the law regarding the discharge of an employee for breach of an express promise in an employment contract, and that the jury instruction should have focussed only on the questions of whether there was a breach and whether or not that breach was material. I do not join in the majority’s discussion of O’Neil v. Schneller, 63 Pa.Super. 196 (1916), and write separately because in my opinion O’Neil is neither analogous nor relevant to the present case. It is factually distinguishable because it involves only breaches of an employee’s implied promises.