Comparative negligence New York's rule that an injured person's compensation is reduced by their own percentage of fault, rather than barred entirely, even if they were mostly to blame.
New York follows pure comparative negligence, so a pedestrian found 30 percent at fault for texting while walking recovers 70 percent of their damages from the responsible sidewalk owner. In NYC sidewalk cases, defendants commonly argue the defect was open and obvious, the lighting was adequate, or the pedestrian was distracted or intoxicated. Those arguments shrink verdicts but rarely eliminate them, which limits how much an owner can rely on blaming the victim. The dependable way to control exposure is removing the defect, since a repaired flag generates no percentages to argue about.
Frequently Asked Questions About Comparative negligence
How does comparative negligence work in New York?
New York uses pure comparative negligence: an injured person's award is reduced by their own percentage of fault, but is not barred even if they were mostly at fault.
What does that look like in a sidewalk case?
A pedestrian found 30 percent responsible for a fall still recovers 70 percent of their damages from the liable party.
What arguments do defendants raise?
That the defect was open and obvious, that lighting was adequate, or that the pedestrian was distracted, wearing unsuitable footwear or impaired.
Does comparative fault eliminate an owner's exposure?
No. It usually reduces a verdict rather than defeating it, which is why removing the defect is a far more reliable strategy than blaming the pedestrian.