The non-representation of a plaintiff who is incapacitated 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 on behalf of the incapacitated plaintiff as ground for a new trial when a setoff or counterclaim has been successfully asserted against the incapacitated plaintiff.
Rule 2057.Nonsuit. Directed Verdict. Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. New Trial.
Adopted June 2, 1941 · Last amended June 3, 1994 · Last verified June 30, 2026
In one sentenceRule 2057 bars a defendant from using an incapacitated plaintiff's lack of representation as a ground for a nonsuit, directed verdict, JNOV, or new trial.
Full Text of Rule 2057
Plain-English Summary
As with minors, a defendant cannot exploit a gap in an incapacitated party's representation. This rule provides that the non-representation of an incapacitated plaintiff may not be assigned by the defendant as a ground for a nonsuit, directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or new trial — the claim is judged on its merits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a defendant win because an incapacitated plaintiff lacked a guardian?
No. The lack of representation cannot be a ground for nonsuit, directed verdict, JNOV, or new trial.
Amendment History
The provisions of this Rule 2057 adopted June 2, 1941, effective February 2, 1942; amended through October 19, 1983, effective Janaury 1, 1984, 13 Pa.B. 3629; amended June 3, 1994, effective July 1, 1994, 24 Pa.B. 3019. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (159494) to (159495).
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. Last verified June 30, 2026. ·
Official text
Also known as: incapacitated non-representationnonsuit incapacitated guardiandirected verdict incapacitated