Key Takeaway
New York appellate court clarifies that plaintiffs don't need to prove absence of comparative negligence for partial summary judgment on defendant liability in personal injury cases.
Understanding Comparative Negligence in Summary Judgment Motions
In personal injury litigation, understanding the strategic nuances of summary judgment motions can make the difference between a complete victory and leaving critical issues for trial. A recent decision from New York’s First Department provides important guidance on how courts handle comparative negligence when plaintiffs seek partial summary judgment on liability issues.
The case demonstrates a key principle that many practitioners overlook: when moving for summary judgment on defendant liability, plaintiffs are not required to simultaneously prove they were free from comparative fault. However, this creates both opportunities and potential pitfalls that require careful strategic planning.
This decision is particularly relevant for attorneys handling New York no-fault insurance law cases, where liability determinations often intersect with coverage issues and comparative fault analyses.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Silverio v Ford Motor Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 02892 (1st Dept. 2020)
“The Court also stated that plaintiff did not need to prove that he was not comparatively negligent in order to obtain partial summary judgment on the issue of defendants’ liability, based on Rodriguez v City of New York (31 NY3d 312 ). Plaintiff’s interpretation of this Court’s decision in Silverio (168 AD3d 608) would require finding that he was not comparatively negligent, despite the fact that he never moved for summary judgment on defendant’s affirmative defense of comparative negligence or introduced evidence to support his contention that he did not contribute to the accident (see Poon v Nisanov, 162 AD3d 804 ; see also Wray v Galella, 172 AD3d 1446, 1448 ).
The issue of comparative fault should have been left to a jury in determining damage”
Yes, please remember that when moving for summary judgment, an application to dismiss the affirmative defense of comparative negligence should be made to completely resolve the issue.
Key Takeaway for Practitioners
The Silverio decision reinforces that obtaining partial summary judgment on defendant liability does not require proving absence of plaintiff fault. However, to achieve complete resolution and avoid jury questions on damages, practitioners must specifically move to dismiss comparative negligence affirmative defenses with supporting evidence.
Related Articles
Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is New York's no-fault insurance system?
New York's no-fault insurance system requires all drivers to carry Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage. This pays for medical expenses and lost wages regardless of who caused the accident, up to policy limits. However, you can only sue for additional damages if you meet the 'serious injury' threshold.
