32 N.Y.2d 162 (1973)
A jury may infer negligence solely from the fact that a vehicle crossed over the center line into the opposing lane of traffic.
Summary
This case addresses the evidentiary burden in a negligence action arising from a car accident where one vehicle crossed the center line. The infant plaintiff, a passenger in a car that crossed into oncoming traffic, sued the car’s owner and the deceased driver’s estate. After conflicting trial outcomes, the Court of Appeals held that the jury should have been instructed that crossing the center line is a circumstance from which they could infer negligence, although not necessarily requiring such a finding. The court reversed the Appellate Division’s affirmance of the defense verdict, ordering a new trial due to the improper jury charge.
Facts
The infant plaintiff was injured while a passenger in a vehicle that crossed over into the opposing lane of traffic, resulting in a collision. The driver of the vehicle died in the accident. The infant plaintiff was asleep at the time of the accident. At the first trial, the only evidence presented on the cause of the accident was the testimony of a witness who had been following the vehicle. This witness testified that the back end of the car “moved back and forth” just before it crossed over the center line.
Procedural History
The trial court initially directed a verdict in favor of the infant plaintiff. The Appellate Division reversed this decision and ordered a new trial. At the second trial, with the same evidence, the jury returned a verdict for the defendants. The Appellate Division affirmed the jury’s verdict. The plaintiff then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court’s jury instruction was improper by conveying that the jury could not infer negligence solely from the fact that the car crossed over the center line of the road into the opposing lane of traffic, and that they must affirmatively find negligence from other facts.
Holding
Yes, because the jury is permitted to infer negligence solely from the fact of a vehicle crossing over the center line into opposing traffic, and the jury instruction failed to convey this permissible inference.
Court’s Reasoning
The court relied on its previous decision in Pfaffenbach v. White Plains Express Corp., stating that a plaintiff is entitled to present their case to the jury solely by demonstrating that the defendant’s vehicle crossed over the center line into opposing traffic. The court reasoned that if a plaintiff can make a case based solely on the crossing over, then the jury is permitted to infer negligence from that fact alone. The court found that the trial court’s instruction was improper because it suggested the jury could not infer negligence solely from the act of crossing the center line. The Court clarified the proper instruction: “The jury should have been instructed that the crossing over was a circumstance for their consideration in determining whether the driver had exercised reasonable care in the operation of his vehicle, even though that fact, standing alone, did not necessarily require a finding that he was negligent.” The court emphasized that the fact of crossing over is a circumstance for the jury to consider when determining if the driver exercised reasonable care. The Court concluded that failing to properly instruct the jury warranted a reversal and a new trial. The jury should be allowed to infer negligence, although not required to find it, based on the vehicle crossing the center line.