Court Opinion

ID: 9729323
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:32:00.176735+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:56.854361
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent.
Although I agree with the majority that a jury finding of liability in a bifurcated trial is not a verdict upon which final judgment can be entered or from which an appeal will lie and that a trial court may properly examine all of the evidence in ruling on post-trial motions filed after a different jury reaches a verdict on damages, I disagree that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial in this case.
The trial court granted a new trial on the basis of an issue not raised by appellee General Motors Corporation in its post-trial motions. The trial court, sua sponte, raised and discussed what effect the bifurcation had on the liability jury’s ability to assess the plaintiffs-appellants’ credibility in that that jury had not heard testimony concerning plaintiffs’ credibility which was presented during the damage phase. R.R. 591a-593a. Concluding that the liability jury would have decided the credibility issue in favor of appellee had the case not been bifurcated, the trial court *429granted appellee’s motion for new trial and ordered that retrial not be bifurcated.1
Matters not raised in post-verdict motions may not be considered by a trial judge for a motion for a new trial.2 See Tagnani v. Lew, 493 Pa. 371, 373, 426 A.2d 595, 595 (1981). See also Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Trust Co., 457 Pa. 255, 322 A.2d 114 (1974).
I would, therefore, reverse the order of Superior Court and would direct that judgment be entered in accordance with the jury verdict.
PAPADAKOS, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.

. The trial court stated:
Since the jury which decided the liability phase of the case did not hear that testimony [the testimony of Dr. Sadwin that plaintiffs were not reliable historians], it is obvious that the jury did not hear all the evidence regarding plaintiffs’ credibility, and the absence of this testimony, in all likelihood, affected the jury’s finding of liability-
Opinion and Order at 8-9 (Dec. 13, 1983).

. Additionally, this issue was not argued by appellee during argument on its post-trial motions.