from the Judgment Entered November 12, 2018 In the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s):
July Term 2017 No. 1835
BEFORE: MURRAY, J., STRASSBURGER, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.
Matthews (Appellant) appeals from the judgment entered in
favor of Cynthia Batroney (Appellee) following a jury trial.
Upon review, we affirm.
trial court summarized the evidence presented at trial as
The matter was tried before a jury on the issue of liability
only. It involved a September 18, 2015, intersection
collision at 19th and Cherry Streets in
Philadelphia between a bicycle ridden by [Appellant] and a
car driven by [Appellee]. [Appellant] was traveling
[southbound] on 19th Street which is one-way.
[Appellee] was driving eastbound on Cherry Street, also
one-way. [Appellee] testified that she stopped at the stop
sign, or a little after it and looked both ways, including up
19th Street, but did not see [Appellant] before
proceeding into the intersection. [Appellant] admitted that
he did not stop at the stop sign while traveling south on
19th, but said that he had "made eye
contact" with [Appellee] before entering the
intersection; [Appellee] denied any eye contact. [Appellant]
testified that [Appellee] did not stop at her stop sign.
[Eyewitness], Albert Eschert, was a pedestrian at the
intersection at the time of the incident. He testified that
[Appellee's] car stopped before moving into the
intersection. He testified further that [Appellant] did not
stop at the stop sign. The physical evidence is that the
contact occurred between the mid-section of the bike and the
front corner of the car on the passenger side.
Trial Court Opinion, 3/6/19, at 2 (footnote and citations to
notes of testimony omitted).
deliberations, the jury rendered a verdict finding Appellee
30% negligent, and Appellant 70% negligent. Id. at
4. Because the jury found that Appellant was 70% negligent,
the trial court entered judgment in Appellee's favor.
Id.; see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 7102
("In all actions brought to recover damages for
negligence resulting in death or injury to person or
property, the fact that the plaintiff may have been guilty of
contributory negligence shall not bar recovery by the
plaintiff . . . where such negligence was not greater than
the causal negligence of the defendant[.]").
filed a timely post-trial motion on September 14, 2018,
requesting that the trial court grant his motion for a new
trial based upon the trial court's refusal to charge the
jury on Section 3321 of the Motor Vehicle Code.
Appellant's Post-Trial Motion, 9/14/18, at 4-5. After
conducting a argument, the trial court denied Appellant's
motion and entered judgment in favor of Appellee on November
8, 2018. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Both the trial court and Appellant have complied with
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.
presents the following issues for review:
1. Did the trial court err as a matter of law in failing to
give proper jury instructions, and denying [Appellant's]
[m]otion for a new trial, where doing so was contrary to the
law and [a]ffected the verdict?
2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in failing to
give proper jury instructions, and denying
[Appellant's] [m]otion for a new trial, where doing so
affected the verdict?
3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in agreeing
with counsel to charge the jury with a certain instruction
and then not instructing the jury with charge?
Appellant's Brief at 4.
address Appellant's issues together because they all
allege error by the trial court in refusing to charge the
jury on the section of the Motor Vehicle Code pertaining to
rights-of-way for vehicles approaching or entering an