When accidents happen, it's common for both parties to share some degree of fault. A driver may be speeding while another runs a red light. A worker might miss a safety step when their employer fails to provide adequate training. In these situations, how do courts decide who pays what?
Injured By Someone's Negligence In New York?
CONTACT USOur Recent Case Results
Settlement
Jury Verdict
Settlement
Settlement
In New York, the answer lies in its comparative negligence system, which was significantly refined by the landmark 2018 Court of Appeals decision in Rodriguez vs. City of New York. This case reshaped how liability is handled when both the plaintiff and defendant share fault. It made it easier for injured parties to prove liability while ensuring that damage awards fairly reflect each party’s responsibility.
At the Porter Law Group, we help clients understand how comparative negligence affects their claims and work to minimize any fault attributed to them while maximizing their recovery. Let's explore how this system works and what the Rodriguez decision means for your case.
Understanding New York's Comparative Negligence System
What is Comparative Negligence?
Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that allows courts to allocate fault among all parties involved in an accident. Rather than following an "all-or-nothing" approach where the person with any fault loses entirely, comparative negligence recognizes that multiple factors often contribute to accidents.
New York's "Pure" Comparative Negligence System: Under Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) Section 1411, New York follows a "pure" comparative negligence system, which means:
- A plaintiff may recover damages even if they are 99% at fault for their own injuries
- Recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault
- There's no threshold that completely bars recovery based on the plaintiff's negligence
Example: If you are awarded $100,000 in damages for your accident, but found to be 30% at fault, you would recover $70,000 ($100,000 minus 30%).
How New York Differs from Other States
Modified Comparative Negligence States: Many states use "modified" comparative negligence systems where:
- Plaintiffs cannot recover if they are 50% or 51% or more at fault
- Recovery is barred entirely once the plaintiff's fault reaches the threshold
- This creates harsh "cliff effects" where small differences in fault percentages dramatically affect recovery
Contributory Negligence States: A few states still follow the harsh "contributory negligence" rule where:
- Any fault by the plaintiff, even 1%, bars all recovery
- This often leads to unfair results where minor plaintiff negligence prevents any compensation
New York's Fairer Approach: New York's pure comparative negligence system is considered more equitable because:
- It allows recovery proportional to the defendant's fault
- It doesn't create arbitrary thresholds that bar recovery
- It recognizes that most accidents involve some degree of shared responsibility
The Rodriguez v. City of New York Case
Carlos Rodriguez was a New York City sanitation worker whose case would reshape comparative negligence law in New York. The accident occurred during routine snow-preparation duties when Rodriguez was seriously injured in a workplace incident involving a sanitation truck.
The Incident Details:
- Rodriguez was working as part of a snow preparation crew
- A sanitation truck was backing up in icy conditions
- The truck skidded on ice and struck a parked car
- Rodriguez was pinned between the truck and a tire rack
- He suffered permanent spinal injuries that affected his ability to work
Safety Protocol Violations: The evidence revealed several safety protocol violations:
- The truck’s guide (a worker who helps direct backing vehicles) stood on the wrong side (driver’s side)
- This positioning limited the driver's visibility
- Proper safety protocols required the guide to be positioned where the driver could clearly see them
- The icy conditions made the backing maneuver particularly hazardous
The Legal Challenge
Rodriguez's Claims: Rodriguez sued the City of New York for negligence, arguing that:
- The City failed to provide adequate safety training
- Supervisors allowed unsafe work practices
- The guide's improper positioning created unnecessary danger
- The City didn't implement proper safety protocols for icy conditions
The City's Defense: The City argued that Rodriguez shared fault for his injuries by:
- Standing in a hazardous area near the backing truck
- Failing to move to a safer position when he saw the danger
- Not following his own safety training
- Contributing to the unsafe work environment
The Procedural Battle
Summary Judgment Motions: Rodriguez filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to rule as a matter of law that the City was negligent and liable for his injuries. The City opposed this motion, arguing that Rodriguez's own negligence created unresolved factual issues that prevented summary judgment.
Lower Court Decisions: The trial court and appellate court initially denied Rodriguez's motion for summary judgment, finding that questions about Rodriguez's comparative negligence needed to be resolved by a jury before liability could be determined.
The Legal Issue: The central question became: Can a plaintiff obtain summary judgment on a defendant's liability even when the plaintiff's own potential negligence remains disputed?
The Court of Appeals' Decision
Overturning Prior Law: The Thoma Standard
The Old Rule from Thoma v. Ronai (1993): Before Rodriguez, New York courts followed the precedent established in Thoma v. Ronai, which required plaintiffs seeking summary judgment to eliminate all questions about their own negligence. Under this standard:
- Plaintiffs had to prove both defendant negligence AND their own lack of fault
- Any disputed issue about plaintiff negligence would defeat summary judgment
- This created an additional burden on plaintiffs beyond proving the defendant's liability
Problems with the Thoma Standard: The old rule created several unfair and inefficient results:
- Plaintiffs faced a double burden: proving defendant fault and disproving their own fault
- Defendants could defeat summary judgment simply by raising unsubstantiated claims about plaintiff negligence
- Cases that should have been resolved efficiently through summary judgment were forced to trial
- The rule didn't align with the comparative negligence system's goal of apportioning fault
The New Rodriguez Standard
The Court's Revolutionary Holding: The Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs seeking summary judgment need only establish:
- The defendant's negligence as a matter of law
- That the defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries
What Plaintiffs NO LONGER Need to Prove:
- That they were completely free from negligence
- That their own conduct didn't contribute to the accident
- That comparative negligence doesn't apply to their case
Burden Shifts to Defendants: Under Rodriguez, comparative negligence becomes an affirmative defense that defendants must prove, rather than something plaintiffs must disprove.
The Court's Reasoning
Alignment with CPLR 1411: The court emphasized that its decision aligned with the text and purpose of New York's comparative negligence statute:
- CPLR 1411 treats comparative negligence as a damages issue, not a liability bar
- The statute is designed to apportion fault, not prevent liability determinations
- Comparative negligence should reduce recovery, not prevent summary judgment
Efficiency and Fairness: The court noted several benefits of the new approach:
- More efficient resolution of clear liability cases
- Reduced burden on plaintiffs to prove a negative (their own lack of fault)
- Better alignment with the goals of summary judgment practice
- Consistency with comparative negligence principles
How the Rodriguez Decision Changed Legal Practice
For Plaintiffs: New Strategic Advantages
Easier Path to Summary Judgment: Plaintiffs can now focus their summary judgment motions on proving:
- The defendant breached a duty of care
- The breach proximately caused injuries
- The defendant's liability is clear as a matter of law
Reduced Burden of Proof: Plaintiffs no longer need to:
- Anticipate and disprove every possible comparative negligence argument
- Prove their own perfect conduct
- Address speculative claims about their potential fault
Stronger Settlement Position: When summary judgment is granted on liability:
- Defendants face certain liability, increasing settlement pressure
- Negotiations focus on damages and fault apportionment rather than whether liability exists
- Plaintiffs have stronger leverage in settlement discussions
For Defendants: New Strategic Challenges
Cannot Defeat Summary Judgment with Mere Allegations: Defendants can no longer defeat plaintiff summary judgment motions simply by alleging that the plaintiff was also negligent. They must:
- Present concrete evidence of plaintiff negligence
- Prove their comparative negligence claims with admissible evidence
- Focus on damages mitigation rather than liability avoidance
Affirmative Defense Strategy: Comparative negligence is now clearly an affirmative defense, meaning defendants must:
- Plead comparative negligence in their answer
- Bear the burden of proving plaintiff fault
- Present evidence supporting their fault allocation arguments
Types of Cases Where Rodriguez Applies
Workplace Accidents:
- Employer safety violations with potential worker negligence
- Inadequate training cases where workers may have made errors
- Equipment defect cases where workers might have misused equipment
Motor Vehicle Accidents:
- Clear traffic violations by defendants with potential plaintiff speeding
- Drunk driving cases where victims might have contributed to accidents
- Pedestrian accidents with clear driver fault but potential pedestrian negligence
Premises Liability:
- Property owner violations with potential visitor negligence
- Slip and fall cases with clear hazards but potential inattention by plaintiffs
- Security negligence cases where victims might have ignored warnings
Limitations and Exceptions to Rodriguez
When Defendants Can Still Win Summary Judgment
Sole Proximate Cause: Defendants can still obtain summary judgment if they prove that the plaintiff's negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident, even under Rodriguez.
No Duty Owed: If defendants owe no legal duty to the plaintiff, Rodriguez doesn't help plaintiffs obtain summary judgment.
Lack of Causation: Defendants can defeat summary judgment by showing their conduct didn't contribute to the plaintiff's injuries.
Continued Role of Comparative Negligence
Partial Summary Judgment on Fault: Courts may grant partial summary judgment on specific percentages of fault when the evidence clearly supports particular fault allocations.
Settlement Leverage: Even when liability is established, comparative negligence remains crucial for settlement negotiations and trial strategy.
Looking to File a Personal Injury Claim in New York?
Reach out to our experienced team for a free consultation.
Why Choose the Porter Law Group for Your Personal Injury Case
The lawyers at the Porter Law Group have decades of experience representing individuals and families whose lives have been devastated by catastrophic injuries. We have obtained some of the largest settlements and verdicts in courts throughout the State of New York. We are a state-wide firm that handles cases with a hometown feel.
Our clients come to us looking for guidance and answers. With seasoned trial lawyers, the Porter Law Group has the resources necessary to help you navigate the most complex cases, against goliath insurance companies that will stop at nothing to prevent you from receiving the compensation you deserve.
You only get one chance to hire the best lawyer for you and your family. Hire the lawyers most recommended by former clients and local attorneys, and the firm that obtains superior results.
When you or a loved one’s life has been devastated by a serious personal injury in New York, don’t hire a lawyer without calling the Porter Law Group to learn why so many of our clients are thankful they trusted us with their case in their time of need.
Protecting Your Rights Under Rodriguez
If you've been injured in an accident where you may share some fault, don't let concerns about comparative negligence prevent you from seeking compensation. The Rodriguez decision ensures that your potential contribution to an accident won't bar your claim entirely and may not even prevent early resolution of clear liability issues.
Contact the Porter Law Group today at 833-PORTER9 or email info@porterlawteam.com for a free consultation about your comparative negligence case. Our experienced attorneys understand how to leverage the Rodriguez decision to maximize your recovery while minimizing any fault attributed to you.
We work on a contingency fee basis, meaning you pay no attorney fees unless we successfully recover compensation for you. Don't let insurance companies use comparative negligence as an excuse to deny or minimize your claim. Let our experienced trial attorneys fight for the full compensation you deserve under New York's fair comparative negligence system.
Remember: even if you contributed to your accident, you may still be entitled to substantial compensation. Contact us today to learn how the Rodriguez decision can help protect your rights and maximize your recovery.
