The trial court properly charged implied assumption of risk. Given the evidence that plaintiff understood that by engaging in criminal activity and fleeing the police he was embarked on a dangerous course of conduct, it cannot be said that the jury's determination that he assumed the risk of injury and that his culpable conduct was a proximate cause of the same was irrational. Concerning damages, it cannot be said that the award deviated from what is reasonable compensation. Although plaintiff's injuries were severe, there was little evidence that plaintiff's injuries diminished either mental capacities or lifestyle. We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Andrias, JJ.