The Appellant Division recently ruled that an errant jury instruction was cause to set aside a $1 jury million verdict in the case where a bicyclist was hit by a car.

At issue, before the Appellate Division in Mariano Simota Bailey, v. Jacqueline M. Hennessey, A-3396-18T3, was the trial court’s use of a model jury charge that pertained to pedestrians crossing the road instead of one relating to the responsibilities of a bicyclist. The Appellate Division held that the use of the improper jury charge warranted reversal, and ordered a new trial. The Appellate Division also asked the Supreme Court’s Committee on Model Civil Jury Charges to review Bailey to decide whether revised instructions were needed for cases involving bicyclists.

The underlying decision was entered in a matter where the defendant driver was operating her vehicle in Waretown when the plaintiff bicyclist, who was riding his on a pathway, crossed the road in a marked crosswalk. The plaintiff allegedly disregarded a stop sign, that was painted on the bike path, and made contact with the vehicle causing his head injuries.

The trial court awarded $1 million, but 35% of liability was apportioned upon the plaintiff bicyclist, leaving a net judgment of $650,000. The plaintiff spent several weeks in a coma, after the accident, and allegedly suffered permanent and severe injuries, including a brain aneurysm fractures in her facial bones.

At trial, the Superior Court judge, instructed the jury using a modified version of Model Civil Jury Charge 5.32C, and applied it to bicyclists including the plaintiff. The charge stated that a person operating an automobile had a duty to stop for pedestrians in a marked crosswalk at an intersection.

At trial, the attorney for the defendant driver asked the judge to use a modified version of Model Civil Jury Charge 5.30H, to state that a bicyclist shall not enter or cross an intersecting street marked with a stop sign without first coming to a complete stop. But the trial judge denied the defendant's request, objecting to the section of 5.30H requiring the bicyclist to make additional observations after coming to a stop. The trial judge opined that the instructionwould conflict with the motor vehicle operator's obligation to make reasonable observations of other vehicles, bicyclists or anything else in his or her path.

On appeal, the lawyer for the defendant driver claimed the trial court's use of the jury charge for pedestrians was improper and that statutory provisions required a person driving an automobile to stop for a pedestrian, but not for a bicyclist.

The Appellate panel concurred with the defendant's argument, setting forth that a person operating bicycle is not a pedestrian under New Jersey law since a bicyclist "is not 'a person afoot."” A-3396-18T3; N.J.S.A. 39:1-1.

For a further discussion on the importance of this holding and how it applies to your potential personal injury case, contact us.