Gerald Criswell, II, and Tracey Criswell, et ux. v. David S. King

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that a challenge asserting that a jury verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence need not be raised before the jury is discharged. Such a claim ripens after the verdict and is preserved when timely raised in post-verdict motions. The court distinguished weight-of-the-evidence claims from challenges based on inconsistent or ambiguous verdicts, which require a contemporaneous objection.

Holdings

1. A claim that a jury verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence need not be raised before the jury is discharged; it is preserved when timely raised in post-verdict post-trial motions.
2. The contemporaneous-objection requirement for an inconsistent jury verdict does not apply merely because the losing party characterizes a clear verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a party must object to a jury verdict before the jury is discharged to preserve a claim that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence.
2. Whether the contemporaneous-objection rule applicable to inconsistent verdicts also applies to a post-verdict weight-of-the-evidence challenge.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded