Our Court, in an Opinion filed January 4, 1980, affirmed the lower court's Order granting a new trial. Lamb v. Gibson, 274 Pa. Super. 7, 417 A.2d 1224 (1980). For a second time, the case was tried before a jury in the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County on September 9 and 10, 1980 before Judge Shaulis. The jury again returned a verdict in favor of appellant.
This Court will reverse the trial court's ruling only upon the conclusion that it acted capriciously or abused the discretion vested in it. Lamb v. Gibson, 274 Pa. Super. 7, 417 A.2d 1224 (1980). The trial court's opinion thoughtfully considered these alleged errors and we can find no basis for holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant's motion for a new trial.
The Superior Court will reverse such a ruling only if it concludes, after reviewing all the evidence, that the trial court acted capriciously or abused its discretion. Lamb v. Gibson, 274 Pa. Super. 7, 417 A.2d 1224 (1980); Bortner v. Gladfelter, 302 Pa. Super. 492, 448 A.2d 1386 (1982). It is correct to grant a new trial when the verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice, and a new trial is required to correct the situation.
When a trial judge rules on a motion for a new trial, it is his duty to review the entire record and he is free to weigh the evidence for himself in order to determine whether the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or whether the judicial process has effected a serious injustice. Lamb v.Gibson, 274 Pa. Super. 7, 417 A.2d 1224 (1980). We are guided by the standards which have been set by the Third Circuit controlling the grant of a new trial.