Whenever a party is accused of causing an accident or injury through negligent or wrongful behavior, a common defense raised by defendants and their insurance companies is that the injured party’s own negligence contributed to the accident or injury. The reason defendants make this argument is that New York operates under a system of comparative negligence. Under a comparative negligence system, an injured party’s financial compensation is reduced in proportion to the percentage of his or her own negligence. In this article, we discuss comparative negligence in New York.
Contributory Negligence
In the past, many states followed the doctrine of contributory negligence. Under a contributory negligence system, a plaintiff that contributes in any way to an accident that causes his or her injury is barred from recovery. Today, only a handful of states follow this rule. Most states operate under a comparative negligence system, which reduces a plaintiff’s financial recovery in proportion to his or her fault for an accident.
New York Comparative Negligence
New York has two rules now, and which one applies depends on the kind of case.
Most injury cases: pure comparative fault. Under CPLR 1411(a), an injured person recovers regardless of his or her percentage of fault, with the award reduced by that percentage. A plaintiff found 90% responsible can still recover against a defendant who was 10% at fault, reduced by 90%. That rule governs slip and fall, premises, construction and most other injury claims.
Motor vehicle cases: a modified rule since May 26, 2026. Legislation effective that date added CPLR 1411(b), which applies to cases under Article 51 of the Insurance Law — New York’s no-fault motor vehicle system. There, fault attributable to the injured person bars recovery entirely if it is greater than the fault of the defendant, or greater than the combined fault of the defendants. The 90%-at-fault plaintiff in the example above would now recover nothing in a car accident case. The change applies to actions commenced on or after May 26, 2026.
Two related changes arrived in the same package. The serious injury definition in Insurance Law § 5102(d) lost its 90/180-day category, and § 5104 now caps non-economic damages at $100,000 where the injured person was at fault and was driving uninsured, was impaired and convicted, or was committing a felony. Section 5104 also directs that fault be determined before the question of serious injury is reached.
Common Types of Comparative Negligence Claims
Comparative negligence can be raised by a defendant to reduce his or her liability in just about any type of personal injury case. Examples of cases in which a plaintiff may have his or her compensation reduced due to comparative negligence include:
- An automobile accident involving a plaintiff who wasn’t wearing a seat belt
- A motorcycle accident involving a plaintiff who wasn’t wearing a helmet or was driving recklessly
- A bicycle accident involving a plaintiff who failed to use proper hand signals or wear reflective clothing
- A pedestrian accident involving a plaintiff who crossed in the middle of the street
- A bus accident involving a plaintiff who failed to wait for the bus to come to a stop before standing up
- A plaintiff in a premises liability case who did not heed warnings about a wet floor or other danger
Contact a New York Personal Injury Attorney
If you’ve suffered an injury in New York, you need an experienced personal injury attorney in your corner. At the Law Offices of Frank J. Dito, Jr., we represent injury victims in Brooklyn and Staten Island. When you come to us for assistance, we’ll do everything in our power to ensure that you obtain fair compensation for your injuries. Please contact us today to arrange a free initial consultation.
