jnov motion in Pennsylvania

2026See Phillips, 86 A.3d at 919 . - 30 - J-E01004-25 The record reflects that the jury was provided with sufficient evidence to determine whether the successor corporation’s acquisition of the product line in question resulted in the virtual destruction of the Burnleys’ remedies against IAT, as the original manufacturer.

2025Cf. Koller Concrete, Inc. v. Tube City IMS, LLC, 115 A.3d 312, 321 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“[Appellant’s] argument does not attack the sufficiency of [appellee’s] evidence, but rather the weight the jury should have ascribed to [appellee’s] evidence. [Appellant] is asking this Court to ‘invade the province of the jury,’ and that is not a basis for JNOV.”).

2025Cf. Koller Concrete, Inc. v. Tube City IMS, LLC, 115 A.3d 312, 321 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“[Appellant’s] argument does not attack the sufficiency of [appellee’s] evidence, but rather the weight the jury should have ascribed to [appellee’s] evidence. [Appellant] is asking this Court to ‘invade the province of the jury,’ and that is not a basis for JNOV.”).

2024Further, Appellant relies on Mercantile Library Co. of Philadelphia v. Fidelity Trust Co., 235 Pa. 5, 15 , 83 A. 592, 595 (1912), for the proposition that “the owner of land, who grants a right of way over it, conveys nothing but the right of passage, and reserves all incidents of ownership not granted.” Appellant maintains that the court disregarded the relevant case law in finding that Appellees possessed an exclusive easement.

2024Further, Appellant relies on Mercantile Library Co. of Philadelphia v. Fidelity Trust Co., 235 Pa. 5, 15 , 83 A. 592, 595 (1912), for the proposition that “the owner of land, who grants a right of way over it, conveys nothing but the right of passage, and reserves all incidents of ownership not granted.” Appellant maintains that the court disregarded the relevant case law in finding that Appellees possessed an exclusive easement.

2024See Mazzie v. Lehigh Valley Hosp.- Muhlenberg, 257 A.3d 80, 87 (Pa. Super. 2021) (providing that “[t]o preserve the right to request a JNOV post-trial, a litigant must first request a binding charge to the jury or move for a directed verdict or a compulsory non- suit at trial”). - 13 - J-A24043-24 on: the sufficiency and weight of the evidence; the trial court’s refusal to charge the jury on comparative negligence; the admission of Husband’s and Uncle’s hearsay testimony about Dr. Michaelson statements to them; and the preclusion of Dr. Montgomery’s testimony about the rate of blood flow in a

2024See Coulter v. Ramsden, 94 A.3d 1080, 1088-89 (Pa.Super. 2014), appeal denied, 631 Pa. 719 , 110 A.3d 998 (2014) (explaining arguments that are not appropriately developed on appeal are waived).

2023The jury heard the defense view of what [York] did in order to oversee patient safety, and the jury was free to draw its own conclusions, which are fully supported by the evidence in the case, that [York] was not negligent. * * * With regard to the duty to oversee all persons who practice medicine, again, the jury was free to accept or reject the defense testimony that the policies that were in effect were designed to do that, and the jury obviously rejected [appellant’s] theory or accepted the defense expert testimony on that issue. - 17 - J-E02003-23 Id. at 50-51.4 Because there was sufficie

2023The jury heard the defense view of what [York] did in order to oversee patient safety, and the jury was free to draw its own conclusions, which are fully supported by the evidence in the case, that [York] was not negligent. * * * With regard to the duty to oversee all persons who practice medicine, again, the jury was free to accept or reject the defense testimony that the policies that were in effect were designed to do that, and the jury obviously rejected [appellant’s] theory or accepted the defense expert testimony on that issue. - 17 - J-E02003-23 Id. at 50-51 .4 Because there was suffici