Webb, M. v. Volvo Cars of North America (concurring)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A33020-15 2016 PA Super 203 MARK WEBB, AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF SABINO WEBB, DECEASED Appellant v. VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, VOLVO CARS CORPORATION, GRACO CHILDREN’S PRODUCTS, INC. (D/B/T/A NEWELL RUBBERMAID, INC.), WILLIAM JULIAN, AND ANA (WEBB) SOARES Appellees : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1367 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment Entered March 26, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No: 110500208 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., STABILE, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ. CONCURRING OPINION BY STRASSBURGER, J.:FILED SEPTEMBER 09, 2016 I agree with and join the Majority’s erudite disposition of this matter holding that Appellant is entitled to a new trial based on the trial court’s erroneous jury instruction. My joinder includes the Majority’s discussion of Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014). I write separately to note my position that, in light of the Majority’s holding, it is unnecessary and perhaps confusing to address the remaining issues on appeal. To say that an evidentiary ruling is not an abuse of discretion does not preclude the possibility that the opposite ruling also would not be an abuse of discretion. Therefore, I respectfully concur. * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
