Getting into an accident in New York can be quite the ordeal; not only do you have to contend with physical and emotional pain, but you also have to deal with complex legal questions like who is at fault and how fault can impact your compensation after the accident. The key lies in understanding New York’s comparative negligence laws—specifically, the difference between pure and modified comparative negligence. In this blog, as your New York City auto accident attorney, the team at Gabriel Law will tell you everything you need to know about New York’s comparative negligence rules and how you can make informed decisions about your claim to secure the compensation you deserve.
Comparative negligence is a legal principle that states that when a person is claiming compensation for damages they have suffered in an accident, and they themselves are partially to blame for the accident, their compensation will be reduced by an amount that best reflects their own fault in the accident.
For example, parties A and B are involved in an accident, and A is now claiming $10,000 in damages, but the accident investigation finds that A was 10% at fault for the accident. If this decision stands, A’s compensation will be reduced by 10%. This concept ensures that everyone involved in an accident is held accountable and that no one is compensated for their wrongdoing. In the United States, there are two types of comparative negligence—pure comparative negligence and modified comparative negligence.
While both versions of comparative negligence operate under the same premise of reducing compensation proportional to the percentage of fault, there is one major difference between pure and modified comparative negligence.
Under the pure approach, a plaintiff is allowed to claim damages, even if they are mostly to blame for the accident. As an example, consider an accident between A and B where A was speeding at the time of the accident. After the accident, A is claiming $50,000 in damages, but the accident report places 90% of the blame for the accident on A. Even though A is mostly to blame for the accident, he is still entitled to compensation, albeit reduced by 90%. In the end, A would only walk away with $5000.
Since New York has adopted the pure comparative negligence rules, we do not have to worry about not being able to claim compensation when most of the fault for the accident is placed on you.
On the other hand, under the modified comparative negligence approach, a plaintiff is not allowed to recover damages if they exceed a threshold of 50% or 51%. This means that if you are mostly to blame for an accident, you will not be allowed to claim any compensation.
Since comparative negligence works when fault is assigned to a person, the best way to reduce the impact of comparative negligence on your claim is to prove that you are not at fault for the accident or to show that your fault is lesser than what the other party claims. This can be achieved by doing the following:
Following these steps will make sure that you have protected your health and your legal right to compensation and prevent the other party from exaggerating and using comparative negligence to reduce your claim.
When claiming compensation for damages in a car accident, you must work hard to prove that you were not at fault for the accident or that the fault was lesser than what the other party claims. The key to this is making sure you have a complete understanding of the rules on comparative negligence.
If you are looking to reduce the impact comparative negligence may have on your compensation, you need to present a strong and compelling case that is supported by evidence and one that refutes any negative claims made by the other party—this is where an experienced car accident lawyer in NYC can shine. At Gabriel Law, car accident cases are our bread and butter, and we’ve helped hundreds of New Yorkers get the compensation they deserve. Contact us today and schedule your free consultation.
