Alvarez, S.v. Trans Bridge Lines, Inc.
Alvarez, S.v. Trans Bridge Lines, Inc. No. 3555 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 6, 2017Background
- Pedestrian-plaintiff Stephanie Alvarez sued Trans Bridge Lines, Inc. and driver Scott Griffin after a rain‑soaked nighttime collision on June 1, 2012, where a bus making a left turn with a green arrow struck Alvarez in a crosswalk.
- Complaint asserted negligence against Trans Bridge (vicarious liability) and Griffin (negligence), and sought punitive damages for allegedly outrageous/distracted driving; negligent per se allegation was struck pretrial.
- After a five-day jury trial (November 2015), the court entered compulsory nonsuit on the punitive‑damages count; the jury returned a unanimous verdict finding Griffin not negligent.
- Alvarez moved for post‑trial relief/new trial; the trial court denied relief and judgment was entered December 12, 2016. Alvarez appealed.
- On appeal, Alvarez raised (1) allegedly inadequate jury instructions on duty at intersections and common‑carrier standard, (2) improper references to the investigating officer’s police report, (3) wrongful dismissal of punitive damages (largely abandoned), (4) verdict against the weight of the evidence, and (5) cumulative evidentiary errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instructions on driver duty at intersections | Jury should have been instructed that drivers entering intersections owe a higher duty/vigilance and specific intersection duties. | General negligence and Motor Vehicle Code instruction (careless driving) were adequate; additional non‑standard language unnecessary or confusing. | No abuse of discretion; general negligence charge and statutory instruction adequately conveyed law given facts (green arrow, video showed conditions). |
| Common‑carrier duty instruction | Bus (common carrier) owed highest duty of care to pedestrians; instruction 13.120 should have been given. | Standard common‑carrier instruction applies to passengers; here injured person was a non‑passenger, so highest‑duty instruction was inapplicable. | No error: trial court properly refused 13.120 because the common‑carrier duty instructions address passengers, not non‑passengers. |
| Use of police report in testimony | Officer Jarrouj’s police report was hearsay and inadmissible; he didn’t witness the accident. | Report was not admitted into evidence; it was used to refresh the officer’s recollection (Pa.R.E. 612); experts may rely on such reports under Pa.R.E. 703. | No abuse of discretion: officer could use his report to refresh memory; expert reliance on police reports is permissible. |
| Weight of the evidence/new trial request | Verdict was against the weight of the evidence given video and testimony supporting negligence. | Conflicting evidence and credibility issues were for the jury; video and testimony supported reasonable findings for defense. | No abuse of discretion: jury’s credibility determinations were permissible; verdict did not shock the conscience. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harman v. Borah, 756 A.2d 1116 (Pa. 2000) (standard of review for denial of a new trial/abuse of discretion).
- Phillips v. Lock, 86 A.3d 906 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standards for adequacy of jury instructions in civil cases).
- Galvin v. Einwechter, 144 A.2d 471 (Pa. Super. 1958) (degree of care at an intersection varies with right‑of‑way; green light reduces required vigilance).
- Reilly v. Southeastern Pa. Transp. Auth., 484 A.2d 1390 (Pa. Super. 1984) (common‑carrier duty instruction appropriate when factual dispute exists whether injured person remained a passenger).
- Holland v. Zelnick, 478 A.2d 885 (Pa. Super. 1984) (police officer may use his own report to refresh recollection during testimony).