binding instruction in Pennsylvania

2020See Thomas Jefferson University v. Wapner, 903 A.2d 565 (Pa. Super. 2006); see also Faherty v. Gracias, 874 A.2d 1239 (Pa. Super. 2005); Corvin v. Tihansky, 184 .A.3d 986 (Pa. Super. 2018). [Appellants] failed to make objection, including at the conclusion of the [c]ourt’s final charge to the jury and prior to the discharge of the jury. [Appellants] have failed to preserve their right to JNOV.

2018Regarding the binding instruction that the appellant had sought, the appellant "agreed not to pursue the instruction it initially proffered ...." Thomas Jefferson , 903 A.2d at 571 .

1985See also Harmony Electric Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Service Commission, 78 Pa. Superior Ct. 271, 282 (1922), (“even now the noncompetitive policy is not absolute or a binding rule of law, for it is within the power of «the Public Service Commission, in its judgment, to permit a competing company to be established ....”).

1930Com., 78 Pa. Superior Ct. 271 .) We said in that case: “The non-competitive policy is not absolute or a binding rule of law; for it is within the power of the Public Service Commission, in its judgment, to permit a competing company to be established.” “The basis of the action of the Commission is the interest of the *431 public distinguished from the interest of the corporation or individual making the application:” Perry Co. Tel. & Tel.

2025As CHOP did not preserve its claims that Appellees failed to establish a claim of vicarious liability or a basis to find CHOP’s agents were negligent, we will not address either issue further. 13 ____________________________________________ (quoting Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Razumic, 480 Pa. 366 , 390 A. 2d 736, 744 (1978)).

2025As CHOP did not preserve its claims that Appellees failed to establish a claim of vicarious liability or a basis to find CHOP’s agents were negligent, we will not address either issue further. 13 ____________________________________________ (quoting Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Razumic, 480 Pa. 366 , 390 A. 2d 736, 744 (1978)).

2020See Thomas Jefferson University v. Wapner, 903 A.2d 565 (Pa. Super. 2006); see also Faherty v. Gracias, 874 A.2d 1239 (Pa. Super. 2005); Corvin v. Tihansky, 184 .A.3d 986 (Pa. Super. 2018). [Appellants] failed to make objection, including at the conclusion of the [c]ourt’s final charge to the jury and prior to the discharge of the jury. [Appellants] have failed to preserve their right to JNOV.

2019“Only when the court commits an abuse of discretion or provides the jury with an inaccurate statement of law is there reversible error.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, 631 Pa. 67 , 121–22, 108 A.3d 779, 812 (2014) (citing Commonwealth v. Hall, 549 Pa. 269 , 701 A.2d 190, 207 (1997)). - 12 - J-S04033-19 In a similar case, Commonwealth v. Jones, 542 Pa. 464, 518 , 668 A.2d 491, 517 (1995), the Supreme Court held that it was not error for a trial court to allow the jury to decide whether other individuals were the defendant’s accomplices rather than giving a binding instruction that required the jury to

2019“Only when the court commits an abuse of discretion or provides the jury with an inaccurate statement of law is there reversible error.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, 631 Pa. 67 , 121–22, 108 A.3d 779, 812 (2014) (citing Commonwealth v. Hall, 549 Pa. 269 , 701 A.2d 190, 207 (1997)). - 12 - J-S04033-19 In a similar case, Commonwealth v. Jones, 542 Pa. 464, 518 , 668 A.2d 491, 517 (1995), the Supreme Court held that it was not error for a trial court to allow the jury to decide whether other individuals were the defendant’s accomplices rather than giving a binding instruction that required the jury to

2019“Only when the court commits an abuse of discretion or provides the jury with an inaccurate statement of law is there reversible error.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, 631 Pa. 67 , 121–22, 108 A.3d 779, 812 (2014) (citing Commonwealth v. Hall, 549 Pa. 269 , 701 A.2d 190, 207 (1997)). - 12 - J-S04033-19 In a similar case, Commonwealth v. Jones, 542 Pa. 464, 518 , 668 A.2d 491, 517 (1995), the Supreme Court held that it was not error for a trial court to allow the jury to decide whether other individuals were the defendant’s accomplices rather than giving a binding instruction that required the jury to

2019“Only when the court commits an abuse of discretion or provides the jury with an inaccurate statement of law is there reversible error.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, 631 Pa. 67 , 121–22, 108 A.3d 779, 812 (2014) (citing Commonwealth v. Hall, 549 Pa. 269 , 701 A.2d 190, 207 (1997)). - 12 - J-S04033-19 In a similar case, Commonwealth v. Jones, 542 Pa. 464, 518 , 668 A.2d 491, 517 (1995), the Supreme Court held that it was not error for a trial court to allow the jury to decide whether other individuals were the defendant’s accomplices rather than giving a binding instruction that required the jury to

2019“Only when the court commits an abuse of discretion or provides the jury with an inaccurate statement of law is there reversible error.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, 631 Pa. 67 , 121–22, 108 A.3d 779, 812 (2014) (citing Commonwealth v. Hall, 549 Pa. 269 , 701 A.2d 190, 207 (1997)). - 12 - J-S04033-19 In a similar case, Commonwealth v. Jones, 542 Pa. 464, 518 , 668 A.2d 491, 517 (1995), the Supreme Court held that it was not error for a trial court to allow the jury to decide whether other individuals were the defendant’s accomplices rather than giving a binding instruction that required the jury to

2019“Only when the court commits an abuse of discretion or provides the jury with an inaccurate statement of law is there reversible error.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, 631 Pa. 67 , 121–22, 108 A.3d 779, 812 (2014) (citing Commonwealth v. Hall, 549 Pa. 269 , 701 A.2d 190, 207 (1997)). - 12 - J-S04033-19 In a similar case, Commonwealth v. Jones, 542 Pa. 464, 518 , 668 A.2d 491, 517 (1995), the Supreme Court held that it was not error for a trial court to allow the jury to decide whether other individuals were the defendant’s accomplices rather than giving a binding instruction that required the jury to

2016Medina, 306 P.3d at 63 ; see also Yohe, 79 A.3d at 536 .

2000See Harnish, 557 Pa. at 166 , 732 A.2d at 599 .

2000See Harnish, 557 Pa. at 166 , 732 A.2d at 599 .

1998See Neshaminy Federation of Teachers v. Neshaminy School District, 501 Pa. 534, 535 , 462 A.2d 629, 635 (1983) (“The power to regulate conduct, of course, would be illusory absent the power to enforce rules through the imposition of ... discipline.”) Moreover, the Association’s rules and regulations governing the lake and park are not onerous, but rather emphasize safety considerations and littering.

1998See Neshaminy Federation of Teachers v. Neshaminy School District, 501 Pa. 534, 535 , 462 A.2d 629, 635 (1983) (“The power to regulate conduct, of course, would be illusory absent the power to enforce rules through the imposition of ... discipline.”) Moreover, the Association’s rules and regulations governing the lake and park are not onerous, but rather emphasize safety considerations and littering.

1991See also Baker v. Department of Public Welfare, 93 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 632, 502 A.2d 318 (1985) (criteria which completely and unequivocally establish the requirements for approval of a program exception request constitute a binding rule of law and thus a regulation).

1986“Where, as here, it is not entirely clear who was the controlling master ... and different inferences in that regard can fairly be drawn from the evidence, it is for the jury, not the court, to determine agency____ The test is always whether, in the particular service for which the employee was borrowed, he continued [to be] liable to the direction and control of his general employer or became subject to the control of the party to whom he was lent or hired, not merely with regard to the result of the work but as to the way in which it should be performed.” Kimble v. Wilson, supra, 352 Pa. at

1986“Where, as here, it is not entirely clear who was the controlling master ... and different inferences in that regard can fairly be drawn from the evidence, it is for the jury, not the court, to determine agency____ The test is always whether, in the particular service for which the employee was borrowed, he continued [to be] liable to the direction and control of his general employer or became subject to the control of the party to whom he was lent or hired, not merely with regard to the result of the work but as to the way in which it should be performed.” Kimble v. Wilson, supra, 352 Pa. at

1980June 27, 1980. [6] The boilerplate request for binding instructions used by Peoples and O'Herron here was rightfully condemned in Broxie, 472 Pa. at 375 n. 1, 372 A.2d at 743 n. 1, and Frank v. Peckich, 257 Pa.Super. 561, 577 , 391 A.2d 624, 632 (1978). [7] The one exception is that Peoples requested a binding instruction that it was not negligent as a matter of law, which contention is also made on appeal here. [8] In Klena , the defendant truck company (Company) negligently failed to provide warning lights on a truck rented to plaintiff.

1980June 27, 1980. [6] The boilerplate request for binding instructions used by Peoples and O'Herron here was rightfully condemned in Broxie, 472 Pa. at 375 n. 1, 372 A.2d at 743 n. 1, and Frank v. Peckich, 257 Pa.Super. 561, 577 , 391 A.2d 624, 632 (1978). [7] The one exception is that Peoples requested a binding instruction that it was not negligent as a matter of law, which contention is also made on appeal here. [8] In Klena , the defendant truck company (Company) negligently failed to provide warning lights on a truck rented to plaintiff.