[brief] Appellant argues that “each element” was met to warrant the requested Mockler charge:  1) Appellant observed puddles earlier in the day “…as well as precipitation” (this is incorrect as Appellant specifically testified to not observing active precipitation); 2) Appellant attempted to stop his vehicle but it hydroplaned causing him to lose contact with the road surface and control of the vehicle; 3) as a consequence, Appellant’s vehicle came into contact with the rear of Respondent’s vehicle.  See Appellant’s brief, page 13.  Appellant, however, does not address the genesis of the ‘elements necessary for the Mockler charge’; specifically, where these alleged elements are even taken from.  Again, Appellant does not cite to a single case that says ‘a jury should be instructed that a reasonable driver who skids is not negligent’.  Rather, in every rear-end motor vehicle collision case cited to by Appellant, the jury was permitted to decide the defendant’s negligence despite the nature of the collision; and had their verdicts of no negligence upheld thereafter.  That does not mean a verdict of negligence is incorrect and/or deserving of being disturbed; rather, the jury in this matter determined that Appellant was not reasonable in his actions/inactions leading up to the collision.  If a driver operates a vehicle too fast for road conditions and as such, skids when he/she attempts to stop, a jury verdict of negligence is not against the weight of the evidence.  In fact, instructing the jury that a defendant who skids is not to be found negligent would be against the applicable law and prejudicial to the plaintiff bringing the claim.  In the instant matter, the jury was instructed as to legal negligence and determined Appellant’s negligence based upon the facts presented and in accordance with the law instructed; as opposed to the issue having been taken from the jury on Directed Verdict pursuant to Dolson.  Ironically, Appellant testified he saw and was aware of Respondent’s vehicle stopped within the left lane, when he made the decision to merge into the left lane to proceed towards the front of traffic.  (2T: 190:01 – 191:01).  Therefore, in accordance with Dolson, Respondent has arguably met ‘each and every element necessary’ for the Directed Verdict; especially in light of the conclusory nature of Appellant’s affirmative testimony in his defense.  There is no standard and/or model civil jury instruction indicating that a driver of a motor vehicle who slides/skids is not negligent, if the person’s actions/inactions were otherwise reasonable.  Appellant has no right to a self-serving and non-standard blurb out-of-context to be read as the applicable law to the factfinder; especially where the namesake for the requested charge involved a case where no such charge was given.  Mockler stands for the proposition that had the jury in this matter returned a finding of ‘no negligence’ as to the Appellant, such a verdict would be upheld upon appeal; not a ‘general excuse’ to be utilized by alleged tortfeasors in litigation.  Accordingly, and since the jury was charged as to and decided the issue of Appellant’s negligence, the instant appeal fails.