The non-representation of a minor plaintiff may not be assigned by a defendant as a ground for a nonsuit, directed verdict, or judgment in favor of any party, but may be assigned by the minor plaintiff as ground for a new trial when a setoff or counterclaim has been successfully asserted against the minor plaintiff.
Rule 2035.Nonsuit. Directed Verdict. Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. New Trials.
Adopted February 14, 1939 · Not amended since adoption · Last verified June 30, 2026
In one sentenceRule 2035 bars a defendant from using a minor plaintiff's lack of a guardian as a ground for a nonsuit, directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or new trial.
Full Text of Rule 2035
Plain-English Summary
A defendant cannot exploit a technical gap in a child's representation. This rule provides that the non-representation of a minor plaintiff — the absence of a guardian — may not be assigned by the defendant as a ground for a nonsuit, directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or new trial. The minor's claim is judged on its merits, not on the procedural lapse.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a defendant win because a minor plaintiff had no guardian?
No. The lack of a guardian cannot be used as a ground for nonsuit, directed verdict, JNOV, or new trial.
Amendment History
The provisions of this Rule 2035 adopted February 14, 1939, effective September 4, 1939; amended through October 19, 1983, effective January 1, 1984, 13 Pa.B. 3629. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (22308).
Source & verification. Rule text, the Official Note, and the amendment
history are reproduced verbatim from the Pennsylvania Code, Title 231, the official compilation
of rules adopted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. This rule has not been amended since its adoption. Last verified June 30, 2026. ·
Official text
Also known as: minor non-representationnonsuit minor guardiandirected verdict minor