NYLE NY Torts & Tort Damages 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Under New York CPLR 1411, how does comparative negligence affect a plaintiff's recovery?
- The plaintiff's damages are reduced by their percentage of fault, but the plaintiff is not barred from recovery regardless of their degree of fault (Correct answer)
- Any contributory negligence by the plaintiff bars recovery entirely
- The plaintiff is barred if their fault exceeds 50%
- Comparative negligence only applies to automobile accidents
Correct answer: The plaintiff's damages are reduced by their percentage of fault, but the plaintiff is not barred from recovery regardless of their degree of fault
CPLR 1411 adopts pure comparative negligence — the plaintiff's recovery is diminished by their percentage of fault, but they may recover even if they are more at fault than the defendant.
Under CPLR 1411, New York follows pure comparative negligence, meaning a plaintiff's culpable conduct (including contributory negligence and assumption of risk) diminishes their recovery in proportion to their degree of fault but never completely bars it. A plaintiff who is 99% at fault can still recover 1% of their damages. This contrasts with modified comparative negligence states that bar recovery when the plaintiff's fault exceeds 50% or 51%. CPLR 1412 applies the same rule to counterclaims. The jury determines the percentages of fault attributable to each party.
Question 2: Under New York law, what are the elements of a negligence cause of action?
- Duty, breach, causation (actual and proximate), and damages (Correct answer)
- Intent, act, harm, and moral blame
- Strict liability, foreseeability, and injury
- Duty, knowledge, willful conduct, and punitive damages
Correct answer: Duty, breach, causation (actual and proximate), and damages
New York negligence requires proof of (1) a duty of care owed by defendant to plaintiff, (2) breach of that duty, (3) actual and proximate causation, and (4) damages.
Under New York common law, negligence requires: (1) duty — the defendant owed a duty of reasonable care to the plaintiff (determined by the court as a matter of law); (2) breach — the defendant failed to exercise the degree of care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise; (3) causation — both cause-in-fact (but-for causation) and proximate cause (the injury was a foreseeable consequence of the breach); and (4) damages — the plaintiff suffered actual injury. The standard of care is that of a reasonable person under the circumstances. Professionals (doctors, lawyers) are held to the standard of their profession.
Question 3: Under New York law, what is the 'zone of danger' rule for emotional distress claims?
- A bystander may recover for emotional distress only if they were in the zone of physical danger created by the defendant's negligence (Correct answer)
- Anyone who witnesses a traumatic event may recover regardless of their proximity
- Emotional distress claims are never permitted in New York
- Only family members of the injured person may recover for emotional distress
Correct answer: A bystander may recover for emotional distress only if they were in the zone of physical danger created by the defendant's negligence
New York follows the zone of danger rule — a bystander plaintiff can recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress only if they were themselves within the zone of physical danger.
Under the zone of danger rule (established in Bovsun v. Sanperi), New York limits bystander emotional distress claims to plaintiffs who were themselves exposed to unreasonable risk of physical harm by the defendant's conduct. The plaintiff must demonstrate they were threatened with bodily harm as a result of the defendant's negligence and suffered emotional distress from witnessing injury to a close family member. New York rejected the broader Dillon v. Legg foreseeability approach used in California. For direct victims (not bystanders), negligent infliction of emotional distress requires conduct that unreasonably endangered the plaintiff's physical safety or caused fear of physical injury.
Question 4: Under New York General Obligations Law § 9-103, what duty does a landowner owe to recreational users of the property?
- No duty to keep the premises safe or warn of hazardous conditions for enumerated recreational activities (Correct answer)
- The same duty of reasonable care owed to any visitor
- A heightened duty to inspect and maintain the property
- An absolute duty to ensure no injuries occur on the property
Correct answer: No duty to keep the premises safe or warn of hazardous conditions for enumerated recreational activities
GOL § 9-103 provides that landowners who permit the public to use their property for specified recreational purposes (hunting, fishing, hiking, etc.) owe no duty to keep the premises safe or warn of hazardous conditions.
GOL § 9-103 provides that owners, lessees, or occupants who permit persons to use their property for specified recreational activities (including hunting, fishing, canoeing, boating, trapping, hiking, cross-country skiing, tobogganing, sledding, horseback riding, bicycle riding, motorized vehicle operation for recreational purposes, and others) owe no duty to keep the premises safe or warn of hazardous conditions. The immunity is lost if the landowner charges for access (beyond parking fees), willfully or maliciously causes injury, or actively creates a dangerous condition. The purpose is to encourage private landowners to open land for public recreation.
Question 5: Under New York law, what is strict products liability as established in Codling v. Paglia?
- A manufacturer or seller is liable for injuries caused by a defective product placed in the stream of commerce without the need to prove negligence (Correct answer)
- Only the manufacturer, never the seller, can be held liable for defective products
- The plaintiff must prove the manufacturer intentionally created the defect
- Products liability claims can only be brought in contract, not tort
Correct answer: A manufacturer or seller is liable for injuries caused by a defective product placed in the stream of commerce without the need to prove negligence
Under Codling v. Paglia, New York adopted strict products liability — a manufacturer, distributor, or retailer may be held liable for injuries caused by a defective product without proof of negligence.
New York adopted strict products liability in Codling v. Paglia (1973), following the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A. To establish a claim, the plaintiff must show: (1) the product was defective (manufacturing defect, design defect, or failure to warn), (2) the defect existed when the product left the defendant's control, and (3) the defect was the proximate cause of injury. For design defect claims, New York uses the risk-utility test (Voss v. Black & Decker). All parties in the distribution chain (manufacturer, distributor, retailer) may be held liable. The plaintiff need not be in privity with the defendant. Comparative fault applies under CPLR 1411.
Question 6: Under New York Labor Law § 240(1), what protection does the 'Scaffold Law' provide to construction workers?
- Absolute liability on owners and general contractors for gravity-related injuries at construction sites due to failure to provide proper safety devices (Correct answer)
- Workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy for all construction injuries
- Construction workers assume the risk of all height-related dangers
- Only the worker's direct employer is liable for safety violations
Correct answer: Absolute liability on owners and general contractors for gravity-related injuries at construction sites due to failure to provide proper safety devices
Labor Law § 240(1), the 'Scaffold Law,' imposes absolute (strict) liability on owners and general contractors for elevation-related injuries caused by failure to furnish or erect proper scaffolding, ladders, and other safety devices.
Labor Law § 240(1) imposes absolute liability on owners and general contractors for gravity-related injuries at construction sites when proper safety devices (scaffolds, ladders, hoists, stays, braces, slings, etc.) were not provided or were inadequate. The statute covers falling worker cases and falling object cases. Comparative negligence is NOT a defense — the plaintiff's own negligence does not diminish recovery (unlike most tort claims). The only defense is that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of their injuries (e.g., choosing not to use available safety equipment for no good reason). This makes New York's scaffold law unique in the nation.
NYLE NY Torts & Tort Damages 2
Under New York CPLR 1411, how does comparative negligence affect a plaintiff's recovery?