Insofar as liability is concerned, this case presents simple issues of fact. Defendant claims that the bicycle was coming out from between the parked cars at a right angle to his automobile and he went right into it, striking the bicycle broadside. The plaintiffs disputed this version and argued that this could not be, because, if the bicycle had been hit broadside, with the infant plaintiff and the other boy riding astride, the automobile would have had to hit the body of the infant plaintiff or the other boy. These conflicting versions were considered by the jury in the light of the physical facts which are clearly spelled out in the record. It is conceded that the automobile hit the bicycle. There is no contradiction of the testimony of the police officer that there was a point of impact in the rear fender of the bicycle and the left hood of the automobile. The verdict of the jury in favor of the plaintiffs clearly denotes that, on the whole case, the jury believed the plaintiffs' version of the accident, as opposed
Murphy and Steuer, JJ., dissent in the following memorandum by Steuer, J.:
We disagree and would reverse and order a new trial. It appears without contradiction that the plaintiff and another boy were both riding the same bicycle. The plaintiff pushed the pedals and the other boy did the steering. The court treated this method of locomotion as if the plaintiff were a passenger without responsibility for the control of the vehicle. Actually, use of a bicycle designed for a single operator by two persons is forbidden by statute (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1232). While plaintiff's immaturity might provide him with an excuse for this violation, that was not the theory on which the case was submitted to the jury. It is true that no proper exception was taken to the Judge's charge, but where, as here, the error is fundamental, the interests of justice require that the verdict not stand. The difficulty in regard to damages emphasizes this. The jury awarded $350,000. The court reduced it to $250,000. A majority of this court has ordered a further reduction, to $150,000. To a lay mind the injury, a skull fracture, appears horrendous. What was involved was a linear fracture without brain damage. The serious effect claimed, a personality change, was disproved. Plaintiff was a problem child in school before the accident, and the most that can be deduced from the record was that his personality did not improve after the accident. A reduction of 60% bespeaks a finding so out of proportion that a new trial rather than correction should be resorted to.