DocketNumber： 333
Judges： Wieand, Popovich, Hester
Filed Date： 7/27/1989
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 10/19/2024
The appellants, William and Jonnie Leaphart, appeal from the judgment entered in favor of the appellees following a jury trial. This action arose after William Leaphart received an electrical shock and then fell from the superstructure of the overhead crane which he was repairing at the foundry where he was employed. As a result of the shock and fall, the appellant now suffers from permanent paraplegia. Although we sympathize with the appellants, we are unable of discern any reversible error committed by the trial court. Accordingly, judgment is affirmed.
On appeal, the appellants allege:
I. The trial court erred in charging the jury that “even wrongful or negligent conduct by defendant is not a defense.”
II. The trial court erred in granting the defendants twenty peremptory challenges and the appellants only eight jury challenges.
III. The trial court erred by refusing to allow the appellants to cross-examine an expert witness as to bias, interest and compensation.
IV. The trial court erred by allowing evidence of industry standards to be admitted against the appellants in a strict liability case.
V. The trial court erred in permitting a defendant to present a witness who had not been previously identified.
VI. The trial court erred in admitting into evidence an exhibit when the appellants had been advised through discovery that said exhibit was unavailable.
VII. The trial court erred in barring evidence of post-accident modification of the defective product by a non-party.
The record reveals the following facts: In 1975, Controlled Motions, Inc. sold two five ton overhead cranes to Frog Switch Manufacturing Company which then were installed in Frog Switch’s foundry located in Carlisle, Penn
On the date of the accident, May 19, 1982, William Leap-hart was employed by Frog Switch as an electrician and was directed to perform routine maintenance work on one of the cranes. To allow the operation of one crane while he serviced the other, William Leaphart climbed the crane under repair in order to throw the upper disconnect switch and de-energize the crane. As he reached out to trip the switch, he placed his hand upon the cover of ballast resistor to steady himself. This caused the cover of the resistor to touch the energized resistor wires, as a result of which William Leaphart suffered a severe electrical shock, lost his balance and fell eighteen feet to the ground. William Leaphart, due to the fall, is a permanent paraplegic, confined to a wheelchair.
William and Jonnie Leaphart brought suit against Whiting, Controlled Motions, Matx and Estep. The Leapharts initially proceeded to trial on both strict liability and negligence theories against Whiting and Controlled Motion. Harvey Hubbell was joined as an additional defendant by Controlled Motions. During the course of the trial, the appellants withdrew the negligence claims against the Whiting and Controlled Motions. At the completion of evidence, a compulsory non-suit was entered in favor of Estep and Matx on the appellants’ negligence claims. The case then went to the jury solely on the strict liability claims against
In sum, the appellants maintained that the crane manufactured by Whiting was defective, that Controlled Motions assembled, sold and installed the defective crane and that Hubbell manufactured the defective ballast resistor which Controlled Motions installed in the defective crane.
Following deliberations, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Whiting, Controlled Motions and Hubbell. The appellants then filed a motion for a new trial, and Controlled Motions filed a protective motion for a new trial against Harvey Hubbell. Both motions were denied. Judgment was then entered on May 16, 1988, and this appeal followed.
First, the appellant alleges that the trial court erred when instructing the jury, as follows:
The focus in this type of a product liability case is on the product. Even wrongful or negligent conduct by a defendant is not a defense. The issue is whether the use of the product by the plaintiff was foreseeable to the manufacturer or suppler [sic], whether the product was defective when it left the manufacture’s [sic] or supplier’s hands, and whether a defective product was a substantial factor in causing the accident and injury to the plaintiff. Trial transcript, p. 946 (emphasis added).
Following completion of the charge, the appellants objected, correctly pointing out that the charge should have read: “Even wrongful or negligent conduct by the plaintiff is not a defense.” Thus, the jury would have been advised that, even if William Leaphart was contributorily negligent, he could still recover for his injuries. When alerted to the error, the trial judge refused to correct the error.
Counsel can comment on what he feels the facts show as to what caused this accident. I will ultimately charge you that any wrong-doing or negligence that you may find Mr. Leaphart did that resulted in his accident is not a defense in this case with any of these defendants and I’ll explain that to you when I charge you.
Trial court op., p. 11.
Instantly, the appellants have not sustained their burden of proving that the erroneous instruction harmed their case. Since we find that the erroneous instruction was harmless, a new trial is not warranted.
Each party shall be entitled to four peremptory challenges, which shall be exercised in turn beginning with the plaintiff and following in the order in which the party was named or became a party to the action. In order to achieve a fair distribution of challenges, the court in any case may
(a) allow additional peremptory challenges and allocate them among the parties;
(b) where there is more than one plaintiff or more than one defendant or more than one additional defendant, consider any one or more of such groups as a single party.
There is little case law interpreting and applying Rule 221. However, this is not to say we are without guidance. The explanatory note for Rule 221 clearly delineates how to apply the rule. The note explains: “The trial judge can best determine what is fair in a particular case by the circumstances that appear at the time of jury selection.” Thus, only when the trial court’s allocation of strikes failed to result in “a fair distribution of challenges,” will we find an abuse of discretion and, consequently, reversible error.
Further insight is found in Bell v. City of Philadelphia, 341 Pa.Super. 534, 540, 491 A.2d 1386, 1389 (1985), where we were presented with a similar allegation of error arising when two defendants received a total of six challenges while the plaintiffs were allowed a total of only four peremptory challenges. Therein, we ruled that such an allocation of challenges was not an abuse of discretion.
The Act of March 29, 19860, P.L. 344, § 1 (17 P.S. § 1171) [repealed], allots four peremptory challenges to the plaintiff and four challenges to the defendant. Pennsylvania appellate courts have consistently interpreted that statute as allowing four challenges to each class of litigants with an antagonistic interest. Additional defendants have interest antagonistic to each other, (citations omitted)
While we recognize that Lenkiewicz provides limited guidance due to the repeal of 17 P.S. § 1171 and the adoption of Rule 221, we do not believe Rule 221 was intended to abrogate completely the notion that each class of antagonistic defendants is entitled to four challenges. See Rule 221, explanatory note. Rather, the new rule allows the trial court great discretion in formulating an equitable distribution of challenges. Instantly, the trial court, applying Lenkiewicz and Rule 221(b), found that all five defendants had competing interest and, accordingly, awarded each four challenges. Then, in order to achieve a “fair distribution of challenges,” the court, applying Rule 221(a), granted the appellants an additional four challenges, for a total of eight peremptory challenges. To be sure, the defendants’ did have more challenges than the appellants. However, aside from sheer numbers, the appellants have failed to allege how they were prejudiced by the distribution of challenges. In fact, the voir dire was not transcribed. Consequently, we do not know the character of the jury or the number of challenges actually used. Unable to discern an unjust result presently, we find that the trial court’s ruling was not an abuse of discretion.
Third, the appellant alleges that the trial court erred by refusing to allow them to cross-examine a defense expert witness as to bias, interest and compensation. Specifically, the trial court sustained defense objections to the following questions:
*263 Q. Now, incidentally, sir, you get hired by parties in litigation all the time?
Q. Have you ever testified for another defendant in a case like this?
Q. Isn’t it a fact that the majority of your time is spent testifying in these cases?
Q. So the majority of your time is spent rendering assistance to lawyers in case in court?
Q. So far, you have gotten $6,000.00 from Mr. Marcel-lo, is that correct?
Q. Do you ever get a bonus if your side wins in these cases?
Q. Can you tell us how many times you have testified this year in cases like this?
Appellants’ brief, p. 20.
While objections were sustained to the above-quoted questions, the appellants were allowed to ask numerous similar questions. Those questions and the answers follow:
Q. Now, the conclusions and opinions that you have reached in this matter, were they fair and impartial?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The fact that you were hired by Mr. Marcello, that didn’t in any way affect your impartiality?
A. No, sir. I do about half defense work and about half plaintiff work____ It does not affect my objectivity.
Sj< }{< * S¡« >r¡ SÍ«
Q. You say that you are associated with Spring Garden College. Isn’t it a fact that the majority of your time is spent testifying in these cases?
A. Currently, yes, sir, it is____
* * # * * sis
Q. Do you work more than 40 hours a week on these types of case?
A. I try not to, sir.
$ , * * $ $ $
Q. Can you give us an idea of how many weeks you spend your time doing this kind of work?
*264 A. I’d say 48 weeks.
* * * * # *
Q. And your hourly charge to Mr. Marcello is what amount of money?
A. Oh, I’m sorry. The amount per hour for my services, regardless of what I’m doing, including now, is $150 an hour.
* * * * * %
The Court: Let me ask the question. What is your best estimate of up to now the time you spent working on this case? Your best estimate.
A. My best estimate up to today would be probably five days.
Q. Five days.
A. Assuming they were eight hour days.
Q. So that is 40 hours. Is that correct?
A. Yeah.
Trial Transcript, pp. 723-730.
A review of the questions which the appellants were permitted to ask reveals that, with the sole exception of the question on a possible victory bonus, the appellants did elicit upon cross-examination the very information which the disallowed questions were designed to elicit. Since it is well within the trial court’s discretion to exclude evidence which is merely cumulative in nature, Burch v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 320 Pa.Super. 444, 455, 467 A.2d 615, 621 (1983); Lewis v. Mellor, 259 Pa.Super. 509, 393 A.2d 941 (1978), we find no error occurred when the questions were disallowed.
In regard to the question, “Do you ever get a bonus if your side wins in these cases?,” the trial court correctly stated, “The question of whether he ever received a bonus was too broad because whether he received a bonus in any other case, was not relevant.” Pennsylvania law is clear that questions of admission and exclusion of evidence, including the scope and limits of cross-examination, are within the sound discretion of the trial court. Kemp v. Qualls, 326 Pa.Super. 319, 323, 473 A.2d 1369, 1371 (1984); Burch,
Fourth, the appellant complains that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of industry standards against the appellants in this strict liability case. It is undisputed that admission of industry standards in a strict liability case would constitute reversible error. Lewis v. Coffing Hoist Division, 515 Pa. 334, 344, 528 A.2d 590, 595 (1987); Majdic v. Cincinnati Machine Company, 370 Pa. Super. 611, 620, 537 A.2d 334, 339 (1988). However, the appellants first offered evidence of industry standards through the testimony of their expert, A. Richard Klashak, and, at the time the testimony was offered, the appellants were pursuing both negligence and strict liability claims against Whiting and Controlled Motions. Trial Transcript, pp. 75-82. Only after evidence of industry standard was proffered by the appellants and rebutted by defendant, Whiting, did the appellants withdraw the negligence counts of their complaints. Thus, we find that, in a strict liability
Fifth, the appellant alleges the trial court erred in permitting additional defendant, Harvey Hubbell, Inc., to call a witness, George Parr, who had not been previously identified. Following William Leaphart’s accident, George Parr, a licensed private investigator, was hired by Hubbell and interviewed William C. DeWalt, an employee of Frog Switch, concerning the allegedly defective ballast resistor. Parr prepared a written report concerning his investigation.
Hubbell, having no plans to call George Parr, did not list him as a prospective witness. However, on the third day of trial, the appellants requested a copy of the report which, by order of court, was supplied to them. The following day, the appellants called DeWalt as a witness. He testified that no jumper cables were installed on the resistor when he examined it after the accident and that he could not remember whether the side of the cover was removed. Several days later, Hubbell called George Parr to impeach William DeWalt’s testimony. Parr testified that the statements made during his interview of DeWalt were inconsistent with the statements made by DeWalt at trial.
In support of their argument, the appellants cite Pa.R. C.P. Rule 4019(i) and Clark v. Hoerner, 362 Pa.Super. 588, 525 A.2d 377 (1987). Rule 4019(i) reads:
(i) A witness whose identity has not been revealed as provided in this chapter shall not be permitted to testify on behalf of the defaulting party at the trial of the action. However, if the failure to disclose the identity of the witness is the result of extenuating circumstances beyond the control of the defaulting party, the court may grant a continuance or other appropriate relief.
Sixth, the appellants allege that the trial court erred in allowing a certain Harvey Hubbell, Inc.’s exhibit when they were advised through discovery that the exhibit was unavailable. This issue is wrought with confusion. The appellants objected to admission of an exhibit, the resistor box.
In either event, by the appellants’ own admission, Hubbell did, in fact, inform them via a pre-trial memorandum that Hubbell “might possibly use a resistor of the type allegedly involved in this accident as an aid in demonstrating the testimony of [Hubbell’s expert].” Thus, Hubbell complied with discovery rules. See Pa.R.C.P., Rule 4003.1 and 4019. The appellants never requested an opportunity to view the resistor or its cover and did not request a continuance to allow their experts an opportunity to view the exhibit. Accordingly, their allegation of error is meritless.
Finally, the appellants allege that the trial court erred in barring evidence of post-accident modification of the crane made by a non-party, Frog Switch, the appellant’s employer at the time of the accident. In Pennsylvania, the subsequent repair rule, forbidding admission of evidence of subsequent repair in a negligence action, is inapplicable in a strict liability case. Matsko v. Harley Davidson Motor Co., Inc., 325 Pa.Super. 452, 454-462, 473 A.2d 155, 156-159 (1984); Wilkes-Barre Iron v. Pargas of Wilkes-Barre, 348 Pa.Super. 285, 293 n. 2, 502 A.2d 210, 214 n. 2 (1985); Gottfried v. The American Can Co., 339 Pa.Super. 403, 403, 489 A.2d 222, 222 (1985).
However, this case is clearly distinguishable on its facts from Matsko. In Matsko, the party against whom the evidence of subsequent remedial repair was offered was not only the party who made the repairs but also was the defendant-manufacturer. Instantly, the alterations were performed by the employer of the injured party. We must remember, as did the trial court, that “The decision [in Matsko ] did not alter the general rule that post accident conduct must nevertheless be shown to be relevant in order to be admissible.” Gottfried, 489 A.2d at 226. The fact that a third party alters a product after an accident is not necessarily probative or relevant to the issue of whether the
Instantly, the appellants did not offer evidence of post-accident design change by the defendant-manufacturers; evidence of that type certainly would have been admissible. Rather, the appellants sought to admit evidence of remedial change by the employer of the injured appellant (we note, to a great extent, they were successful). Admission of evidence of remedial changes by the employer would have amounted to admission of opinion on a matter exclusively within the realm of experts. Since this would be an opinion of an “expert” whose qualifications were unknown and who would have been impossible to cross-examine, the court was correct in excluding the evidence. See generally Dambacher v. Mallis, 336 Pa.Super. 22, 35-39, 485 A.2d 408, 415-416 (1984).
In conclusion, we find that appellants’ assertions of error are without merit. Accordingly, the court correctly denied appellants’ motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.
Judgment affirmed at 333 Harrisburg 1988, appeal dismissed at 346 Harrisburg 1988.
. At side bar, the following exchange took place:
Mr. Lurie: Your honor, in your charge there was a sentence or paragraph you began with focus, you should focus on the product itself, if there was wrongful or negligence used and I think Your Honor may have mis-spoke because you said defendants instead of plaintiff.
The Court: I said defendants?
*260 Mr. Lurie: Yes.
Mr. Thomas: That is not my recollection.
Mr. Lurie: Well, if Your Honor could look at your notes and—
The Court: Well, I know what my notes say. If I mis-spoke, I mis-spoke. Okay. Next?
. We note that, after ruling no abuse of discretion occurred, the court stated: “Moreover, the appellants failed to argue this issue in the brief filed in the trial court in support of their motion for a new trial. The issue, therefore, has not been preserved for appellate review.” Bell, 491 A.2d at 1389.
. When questioning about the bonus occurred, the following exchange took place:
Q. Do you ever get a bonus if your side wins in these cases?
A. No, sir.
Mr. Marcello: Objection.
The Court: Sustain the—
Mr. Marcello: Your honor, if this has something to do with—
The Court: I sustained the objection. We’re talking about this case. Trial transcript, pp. 729-730.
Clearly, the court opened the door for the appellants to ask a relevant question: Whether the witness would receive a bonus from Mr. Marcello if the defendants won the present case. However, the appellants did not ask that question. Moreover, we note that the witness did, in fact, answer the question in the negative before the objection to the question was sustained.
. Moreover, we note that the appellants’ objection to allowing George Parr to testify was made on the basis that Parr’s testimony would be hearsay, not on the grounds of undue surprise. Consequently, the appellant cannot now claim he was surprised by the testimony and invoke the protection of Rule 4019(i). Appellants should have objected on the basis of surprise and moved for a continuance since the inconsistent testimony of their witness was the "extenuating circumstance” beyond the control of the defendant. See generally, Steffy v. Carson, 422 Pa. 548, 551, 222 A.2d 894, 896 (1966).
. The appellants, in their case in chief, introduced a part of the resistor cover as plaintiff’s exhibit 28. Trial Transcript, p. 340. They cannot therefore complain of Hubbell’s expert’s use of a similar resistor cover to illustrate his testimony.
. Moreover, as has already been stated, the appellant initially brought both strict liability and negligence claims against Whiting and Controlled Motions. Thus, Matsko may not even apply since it did not invalidate the traditional rule that, in negligence cases, post-injury repairs or improvements are inadmissible to show a lack of due care at the time of the injury. Gottfried, 489 A.2d at 226.