When a car accident occurs in Glens Falls, it is not uncommon for each driver involved to blame the other for the collision. This often extends into the trial of a personal injury claim arising from an accident. The plaintiff alleges the defendant’s negligence caused the crash, while the defendant maintains it was actually the plaintiff’s fault.
New York’s Pure Comparative Fault Rule
So how do New York courts sort out this “blame game”? The short answer is they follow a legal principle known as comparative negligence (or comparative fault). Essentially, the trier of fact in the personal case–either a jury or a judge sitting alone–must decide, based on all of the relevant evidence, the relative fault of each party as a percentage. Any damages awarded to the plaintiff are then reduced in proportion to their share of fault, if any.
To give a simple hypothetical example, say two cars collide at an intersection. A personal injury lawsuit follows. The plaintiff proves that the defendant ran a red light. But the defense proves the plaintiff was speeding. The jury decides both drivers are equally at fault (50/50). The plaintiff’s total damages from the accident was $100,000, but since they were 50 percent at-fault, the defendant only owes them $50,000.
In some states that follow a comparative negligence rule, there is a limit on how much the plaintiff may be at-fault and still collect damages. New York, however, is a “pure” comparative negligence state. This means that in theory, a plaintiff could be 99 percent at-fault and still collect 1 percent of their damages from a negligent defendant.
Federal Appeals Court Orders New Trial Following E-Bike Operator’s Collision with Marine Corps Vehicle
Assigning comparative fault in a car accident lawsuit can be tricky depending on the specific facts and circumstances of a case. There is no set formula for determining when a plaintiff is 20 percent or 50 percent or 80 percent at-fault. The trier of fact must consider any relevant factor.
That said, even if a plaintiff was negligent in some fashion prior to a car accident, the defense must still prove that negligence was a causal factor in the accident itself. This is the same burden of proof the plaintiff has with respect to the defense’s negligence. It is not enough to simply point out that either driver did something wrong. There must be a logical connection to the accident.
A recent decision from the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Dooley v. United States, provides a useful real-world example. This is a New York personal injury lawsuit brought against the federal government. The plaintiff worked as a delivery driver in New York City. He used a motorized bicycle (e-bike) to make his deliveries. On the day in question, the plaintiff was driving his e-bike down a street in the Bronx.
At the same time, a recruiter for the U.S. Marine Corps parked his government-issued work vehicle on the same street. As the plaintiff approached on his e-bike, the recruiter opened his car door into the street without checking for oncoming traffic. The plaintiff’s bicycle struck the door. The plaintiff fell to the ground and sustained serious injuries to his left knee and ankle that ultimately required surgery.
When a federal government employee causes a car accident in the course of their official duties, the victim may file a personal injury claim under a special law called the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). An FTCA case is tried under the substantive law of the state where the accident occurred–in this case New York–but there is no jury. Instead, a federal judge serves as the trier of fact.
During the trial, the government introduced evidence that the plaintiff regularly smoked marijuana and used alcohol. The plaintiff admitted as much during a pre-trial deposition, although he testified at trial that he had not taken any intoxicating substances on the day of the accident. But the Marine recruiter testified that he thought the plaintiff was high.
The judge ultimately found that both drivers were at-fault for the accident. The Marine recruiter–and thus the government–was 60 percent at-fault. The judge said the plaintiff was 40 percent at-fault for three reasons. First, the plaintiff had been operating his e-bike too “close” to parked vehicles. Second, the judge believed the plaintiff had been riding too fast for safe travel. Third, it was “more likely than not” the plaintiff was impaired in some way by drugs or alcohol.
The judge determined the plaintiff sustained $175,000 in damages. After accounting for the 40 percent fault, however, the court reduced the final award to $105,000. The plaintiff appealed.
The Second Circuit agreed with the plaintiff that the trial court failed to properly justify its finding of comparative fault. Specifically, the trial judge failed to explain what speed the plaintiff should have been riding his e-bike at when the accident occurred, as well as the proper distance he needed to maintain from parked cars. More to the point, the trial court failed to explain how the plaintiff could have actually avoided colliding with the Marine recruiter’s door if he had acted differently.
As for the finding the plaintiff was likely impaired–i.e., high on marijuana–the Second Circuit said the only evidence cited by the trial court was the Marine’s testimony as to his personal observations of the plaintiff immediately after the collision. The appeals court pointed out the Marine was hardly a disinterested witness. Even though he cannot be held personally liable for any civil damages, he could still face professional discipline for his conduct in causing the accident. And once again, even assuming the plaintiff had used drugs or alcohol that day, the trial judge failed to explain how that actually caused or contributed to the accident. The Second Circuit therefore returned the case to the district court and instructed the trial judge to re-allocate the comparative fault between the parties.
Contact a Glens Falls Car Accident Attorney Today
Even if you are convinced that the other driver was 100 percent responsible for your car accident, you still need to prove that in court. And the defense will make every effort to try and paint you as the reckless and irresponsible driver. That is why it is important to work with an experienced Glens Falls car accident lawyer. Contact Larson & Gavilan Law today at 518-862-8799 to schedule a free initial consultation.
