ORDER

AND NOW, this 23rd day of May, 2012, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues are:

*589 (1) Whether the Superior Court violated longstanding precedent and deviated from existing law by granting [respondents] a new trial based on a purportedly faulty “error in judgment” jury instruction in circumstances where [respondents] failed to object to the instruction at trial, and, accordingly, failed to preserve the issue for appeal[?]

(2) Whether the Superior Court contravened controlling precedent by not considering a trial court’s jury charge in its entirety to determine whether a trial court’s reference to the error-in-judgment concept was harmless and the charge in its entirety was a correct statement of law[?]

(3) Whether the Superior Court contravened controlling precedent by relying on its decision in Pringle v. Rapaport, [ ] 980 A.2d 159 (Pa.Super. 2009) to vacate a verdict in circumstances where the instruction given by the trial court was a proper statement of the law even assuming Pringle applied[?]