NYLE - New York Law Exam NY Torts & Tort Damages 1 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Under CPLR 214(5), what is the statute of limitations for a personal injury action based on negligence in New York?
- One year from the date of injury
- Two years from the date of injury
- Three years from the date of injury (Correct answer)
- Six years from the date of injury
Correct answer: Three years from the date of injury
CPLR 214(5) establishes a three-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims. The period generally begins to run on the date the injury is sustained, not when the plaintiff discovers it (absent a discovery exception such as latent disease under CPLR 214-c).
Question 2: Under New York law, when is a dog owner strictly liable for injuries inflicted by their dog?
- Whenever a dog bites any person, regardless of prior incidents
- Only when the dog has previously bitten at least two people
- Only when the owner knew or should have known of the dog's vicious propensities (Correct answer)
- Only when the dog was off the owner's property at the time of injury
Correct answer: Only when the owner knew or should have known of the dog's vicious propensities
New York does not impose automatic strict liability for all dog bites. Under Collier v. Zambito, strict liability attaches only when the owner had prior knowledge—actual or constructive—of the dog's vicious propensities. A single prior act of aggression (not necessarily a bite) can be sufficient to establish that knowledge.
Question 3: Under CPLR 1602, how is a defendant whose equitable share of fault is 50% or less treated with respect to non-economic damages?
- Jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff's full non-economic damages
- Severally liable only for their proportionate share of non-economic damages (Correct answer)
- Immune from liability for non-economic damages entirely
- Jointly liable for non-economic damages only if they acted in concert with another tortfeasor
Correct answer: Severally liable only for their proportionate share of non-economic damages
CPLR 1602 limits joint and several liability for non-economic damages. A defendant whose share of fault does not exceed 50% is severally liable only—meaning they pay only their own proportionate share of non-economic damages, not the full amount. Defendants whose fault exceeds 50% remain jointly and severally liable.
Question 4: Under New York's Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 11-101 (the Dram Shop Act), a licensed vendor may be held liable for injuries caused by an intoxicated patron when the vendor:
- Served alcohol to any patron who later caused an accident, regardless of apparent intoxication
- Sold or provided alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person who then caused injury to a third party (Correct answer)
- Failed to arrange transportation for a patron who consumed more than three drinks
- Served alcohol to a patron under the age of 21, even if the patron showed no signs of intoxication
Correct answer: Sold or provided alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person who then caused injury to a third party
ABC Law § 11-101 imposes civil liability on vendors who unlawfully sell or provide alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person, and that intoxication is a proximate cause of injury to a third party. Visible intoxication at the time of service is the critical element; the statute does not impose liability for serving any patron who later causes harm.
Question 5: To invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in a New York negligence action, the plaintiff must establish that:
- The defendant had actual written notice of the dangerous condition at least 24 hours before the injury
- The plaintiff suffered a permanent physical injury and no alternative cause can be identified
- The accident is of a type that ordinarily does not occur absent negligence and was caused by an instrumentality in the defendant's exclusive control (Correct answer)
- The defendant violated a specific safety statute that was enacted to protect persons in the plaintiff's position
Correct answer: The accident is of a type that ordinarily does not occur absent negligence and was caused by an instrumentality in the defendant's exclusive control
Res ipsa loquitur allows a jury to infer negligence when: (1) the occurrence is of a kind that would not ordinarily happen without negligence; (2) it was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the defendant's exclusive control; and (3) the injury was not due to the plaintiff's own voluntary action. The doctrine shifts the burden of going forward to the defendant to offer an explanation.
Question 6: Under New York strict products liability law, a plaintiff injured by a defective product must prove:
- That the manufacturer was negligent in the design or manufacturing process
- That the product was defective and the defect was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injury (Correct answer)
- That the manufacturer had actual knowledge of the defect before placing the product in commerce
- That the plaintiff suffered only economic loss with no accompanying physical harm
Correct answer: That the product was defective and the defect was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injury
New York recognizes strict products liability under Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co. A plaintiff must show that the product was in a defective condition when it left the manufacturer's control and that the defect was a substantial factor in causing the injury. The plaintiff need not prove negligence or that the manufacturer knew of the defect—the inquiry focuses on the product's condition, not the defendant's conduct.
NYLE - New York Law Exam NY Torts & Tort Damages 1
Under CPLR 214(5), what is the statute of limitations for a personal injury action based on negligence in New York?