A New Jersey appeals court has ruled that a faulty jury instruction is cause to set aside a $1 million verdict in the case of a bicyclist hit by a car.

At issue was the trial judge's use of a model jury charge that pertains to pedestrians crossing the road instead of one relating to the responsibilities of a bicyclist. The appeals court said the use of the wrong jury charge warranted reversal, and ordered a new trial. The panel also asked the Supreme Court's Committee on Model Civil Jury Charges to review the case to decide whether revised instructions are needed for cases involving bicyclists.

The verdict was entered in a suit filed by Mariano Simota Bailey against Jacqueline Hennessey. Hennessey was driving on Wells Mills Road in Waretown in July 2014 when Bailey, who was riding his bike on a pathway, crossed the road in a marked crosswalk. Bailey, who disregarded a stop sign that was painted on the bike path, suffered head injuries.

The gross verdict was $1 million, but 35% of liability was apportioned to Bailey, dropping the final judgment to $650,000. Bailey spent several weeks in a coma after the accident and suffered permanent and severe injuries, including an aneurysm in the brain and fractured facial bones.

At trial, Superior Court Judge Andrea Carter, in Middlesex County, instructed the jury using a modified version of Model Civil Jury Charge 5.32C, and applied it to bicyclists. That charge says that a person driving a car has a duty to stop for pedestrians in a marked crosswalk at an intersection.

At trial, the lawyer for Hennessey 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 Carter denied the request, objecting to the portion of 5.30H requiring the bicyclist to make additional observations after coming to a stop. Carter said such an instruction would conflict with the driver's obligation to make reasonable observations of other vehicles, bicyclists or anything else in the driver's path.

On appeal, the lawyer for Hennessey claimed Carter's use of the jury charge for pedestrians was wrong and that state statute requires a person driving a car to stop for a pedestrian, but not for a bicyclist.

The panel of Judges Joseph Yannotti, Heidi Currier and Lisa Firko agreed, saying a person riding a bicycle is not a pedestrian under state law "because a bicyclist is not a person afoot."

Bailey's lawyer, Robert Baumgarten of Ginarte Gallardo Gonzalez Winograd in Newark, declined to comment. Hennessey's lawyer, Mark Hochman of the Law Offices of Stephen E. Gertler in Wall, did not respond to a request for comment about the case.