New York Court of Appeals decides on Comparative Fault.
January 20, 2019
In another split decision in Rodriquez v. City of New York, the Court of Appeals took issue with whether a plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant’s liability, when a defendant has raised an issue of fact regarding plaintiff’s comparative negligence. Plaintiff Carlos Rodriguez was employed by the New York City Department of Sanitation (DOS) as a garage utility worker. He was injured while "outfitting" sanitation trucks with tire chains and plows to enable them to clear the streets of snow and ice. Plaintiff commenced this negligence action against the City of New York. After discovery, he moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant's liability. Defendant opposed the motion and cross-moved for summary judgment in its favor. The Supreme Court denied both motions. In denying plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, the Supreme Court held that there were triable issues of fact regarding foreseeability, causation, and plaintiff's comparative negligence and the Appellate Court affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed and found that plaintiff need not prove his or her own lack of comparative fault in order to be granted partial summary judgment on liability.
The Court of Appeals’ opinion can be found here:
How Can We Help?
We are not a volume practice so you will get the one on one attention your case deserves. If you or a loved one have suffered a catastrophic, life-altering injury, we are here to speak to you. We understand the concerns you have and the fears you are experiencing.
We are available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. We take every personal injury case on a contingency basis which means that you don’t pay an attorney’s fee unless we recover compensation for you.
One Call! That is All!