§§ 1454, 1455]              Law of the Road.                                697

upon conviction thereof by any magistrate, either upon confession
of the party or competent testimony, may be fined for such ofifense
any sum fixed by such ordinance as a penalty not exceeding ten
dollars, and in default of payment of such fine, may be committed
to prison by such magistrate until the same be paid; but such
imprisonment shall not exceed ten days. Until the municipal
assembly shall pass ordinances regulating the matters which by
this title to such matters in the different parts of The City of
New York, as it is authorized to regulate, the laws and ordinances
now applicable constituted by this act, shall continue and remain
in full force and effect.
See L. 1882, ch. 410, § 1933.

Law of the road.

§ 1455. In all cases of persons meeting each other in any street
in The City of New York, in carriages, wagons, carts, bicycles,
tricycles or sleighs, each person so meeting shall go to that side
of the street on his right, so as to enable the carriages, wagons,
carts, bicycles, tricycles or sleighs so meeting to pass each other,
under the penalty of five dollars for every ofifense, to be recovered
by an action, with costs of suit, in any court having cognizance
thereof, by any person suing for the same. The proprietor of the
carriage, wagon, cart, bicycle, tricycle or sleigh, neglecting or refus¬
ing to turn to the right, as above directed, shall be considered, if
present at the time of such meeting, as the person committing the
said offense, and if absent, then the driver of such carriage, wagon,
cart or sleigh, or the rider of such bicycle or tricycle shall be so
considered.

L. 1883, ch. 410, § 1933.

(a)  It is no defense to an action     render a person liable for all dani-
to recover the penalty prescribed     age which may arise from its viola-
by this section for driving on the     tion. The liability of a person for
viTong side of a street that a per-     damage caused by violating the law
son violating its provisions had no     of the road depends upon the rules
design to offend, but, on the con-     of law applicable to cases of negli-
trary, attempted to avoid a col-     genee,so that if the party aggrieved
lision. Nor is it a defense that the     was guilty of contributory negli-
road on his side was rough aud     gence, he cannot recover for inju-
rutty, and that it was more diffi-     ries sustained. Newman v. Ernst,
cult for him than for the other     10 N. Y. Supp. 310; s- c, 31 N. Y.
party to turn out; unless the obsta-     State Eep. 1; Simmonson v. Stellen-
cles to turning out are insuperable     merf, 1 Edmunds' S. C. 194.

or extremely difficult, he is without        (c)   The  failure  of   a  person  to

excuse.      Earing   v.    Lansingh,    7     obey the law of the road renders

Wend.  185;   Simmonson v. Stellen-     him presumptively liable for inju-

merf, 1 Edmunds' S. C. 194.                 ries    arising    therefrom.    Pike    v.

(b)  But the mere fact that  this     Bosworth.  7 N. Y.  State Eep.  665.
section prescribes a penalty for its     Compare Newman v. Ernst, supra.
violation does not as matter of law