Factor v. Bicycle Technology, Inc.
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania; July 23, 1996; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court
The appeal centers on whether the trial court erred in denying Marvin and Kathleen Factor's motion for a new trial after a jury verdict in favor of Giant Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Marvin Factor sustained injuries from a bicycle accident involving a Giant bicycle, which he claimed was defective due to the absence of a redundant retention device for the front wheel. The jury determined that the front wheel did not come off the bicycle during the accident, leading to a verdict for Giant. The Factors sought a new trial, arguing the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and that the trial court erroneously allowed testimony from Giant’s expert witness, which they claimed was misleading and inconsistent with his report. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the denial of a new trial. The court noted that the Factors' assertion that witness testimonies supported their claim was countered by the trial court's finding that no witnesses saw the wheel detach during the accident. The court emphasized that granting a new trial requires more than a conflict in testimony; it must demonstrate that the jury's verdict shocks the sense of justice. The trial court's decision to deny the Factors' request for a new trial was upheld. The Factors argue on appeal that the trial court erred by not striking the testimony of Giant's expert witness, Ward Curtis, or instructing the jury to disregard it, which they claim warrants a new trial. However, the court found this argument unpersuasive. Curtis inspected the bicycle involved in the case and testified that he found no evidence to support the claim that the front wheel had prematurely released. He presented the bicycle to the jury, highlighting the absence of broken spokes or damage, leading him to conclude that the wheel did not detach during the accident. On cross-examination, Curtis stated that he believed the front wheel in evidence was not the one on the bicycle during the incident. He acknowledged being hired by Giant and noted that his prior report did not mention this opinion. During a conference outside the jury's presence, the trial judge informed the Factors that they could motion for a mistrial, which they declined, instead asking for Curtis's testimony to be struck or for the jury to be instructed to disregard it. The trial court denied their request. The Factors did not seek a continuance to present rebuttal testimony or provide any written instructions as suggested by the court. Furthermore, the trial court had instructed the jury to consider that Curtis expressed an opinion at trial that was not present in his report. Citing precedent, the court concluded that the Factors waived their right to a new trial by not moving for a mistrial despite being aware of the alleged defects in Curtis's testimony. The judgment was affirmed.