What Is Comparative Negligence in New York?

Comparative negligence is the rule New York uses to decide what happens to a damages award when the injured person is partly responsible for their own injury. New York’s comparative fault statute, N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1411, is divided into two subsections that apply different rules depending on the type of case. Under subsection (a), the general rule, a claimant’s own fault does not bar recovery; it only reduces the damages in proportion to the claimant’s share of fault. Under subsection (b), which applies specifically to personal injury actions arising from motor-vehicle accidents subject to Insurance Law article 51, a claimant whose fault is greater than the defendant’s fault is barred from recovery entirely, a materially different and stricter outcome. Which rule applies depends on the type of claim involved, so understanding the distinction matters before assuming how fault will affect a case. Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys can review how comparative fault applies to a specific New York injury claim. Call (888) 437-7747 to discuss the facts of your case.

Understanding New York’s Two Comparative Fault Rules

Before New York adopted comparative fault, an injured person who was even slightly at fault for their own injury could be barred from recovering anything at all under the older contributory negligence rule. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1411 changed that by allowing recovery even where the claimant shares some responsibility, with damages reduced rather than eliminated, in most cases.

Subsection (a) states the general rule: in any action to recover damages for personal injury, injury to property, or wrongful death, the claimant’s culpable conduct, including contributory negligence or assumption of risk, does not bar recovery. Instead, the damages otherwise recoverable are diminished in proportion to the claimant’s share of the culpable conduct that caused the damages. This is often described as a pure comparative fault rule, because it applies regardless of how large the claimant’s share of fault is — a claimant can still recover the portion of damages not attributable to their own conduct under subsection (a), even where their share of fault is substantial.

Subsection (b) creates an exception for a specific category of case: a personal injury action subject to article 51 of the Insurance Law, which is New York’s no-fault motor-vehicle insurance framework. In that category, the claimant’s culpable conduct bars recovery entirely if it is greater than the culpable conduct of the defendant or defendants against whom recovery is sought. The statute does not state a specific percentage threshold; it uses a comparative “greater than” standard, meaning the claimant’s fault has to exceed the combined fault attributed to the defendant or defendants for the bar to apply. This is a modified rule, not a pure comparative fault rule, and it produces a very different outcome than subsection (a) in a close case: under subsection (a), a claimant whose fault slightly exceeds the defendant’s would still recover a reduced share of damages, while under subsection (b), in a covered motor-vehicle case, that same claimant would recover nothing at all.

Because subsection (b) applies specifically to motor-vehicle personal injury claims subject to the no-fault law, most other types of New York personal injury cases — premises liability, workplace injury, and product liability claims among them — remain governed by the general pure comparative fault rule in subsection (a).

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between contributory and comparative negligence?

Contributory negligence, an older rule New York no longer follows in this form, could completely bar an injured person from recovering anything if they were found even slightly at fault. Comparative negligence, the rule now codified in N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1411, generally allows recovery even where the claimant shares fault, with damages reduced according to that share under subsection (a), except in the motor-vehicle context addressed by subsection (b).

Is New York a pure comparative fault state?

New York applies pure comparative fault as the general rule under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1411(a) for most personal injury, property damage, and wrongful death claims. However, subsection (b) applies a different, stricter rule to personal injury actions arising from motor-vehicle accidents subject to Insurance Law article 51, so it is not accurate to describe New York as a pure comparative fault state without exception.

What happens if I am found more at fault than the other driver in a car accident?

In a personal injury claim arising from a motor-vehicle accident subject to Insurance Law article 51, N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1411(b) bars recovery entirely if your fault is greater than the fault of the driver or drivers you are pursuing a claim against. This is different from most other New York injury claims, where partial fault only reduces, rather than eliminates, your recovery.

Does comparative fault apply to a slip and fall or premises liability case?

Yes, generally under the pure comparative fault rule in N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1411(a), since a premises liability claim is not a motor-vehicle personal injury action subject to Insurance Law article 51. A claimant found partly at fault in a fall on someone else’s property has their damages reduced proportionally rather than barred outright.

How is my percentage of fault determined?

The percentage of fault attributed to each party in a New York case is generally determined by the trier of fact, meaning a jury in a jury trial or a judge in a non-jury proceeding, based on the evidence presented about each party’s conduct. In a settlement negotiated before trial, the parties may instead reach their own agreement about how fault, and therefore damages, should be allocated.

Does subsection (b) apply to every car accident claim?

Subsection (b) applies to personal injury actions subject to article 51 of the Insurance Law, which covers motor-vehicle no-fault claims. Property damage claims arising from the same accident, and other types of claims not subject to that article, may still be governed by the general rule in subsection (a) rather than subsection (b), so the type of claim and the type of damages sought both matter.

Can comparative fault reduce a wrongful death claim?

Yes. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1411(a) expressly applies to actions for wrongful death, meaning a decedent’s own culpable conduct can reduce, though not automatically eliminate, the damages recoverable in a wrongful death action, subject to the same subsection (a)/(b) distinction that applies to other personal injury claims depending on whether the death arose from a motor-vehicle accident subject to Insurance Law article 51.

Who decides whether subsection (a) or subsection (b) applies to my case?

Whether subsection (a) or subsection (b) governs depends on the type of claim, specifically whether it is a personal injury action arising from a motor-vehicle accident subject to Insurance Law article 51. Because this distinction can significantly affect the outcome of a case involving disputed fault, it is worth having the specific facts of a claim reviewed early to understand which rule applies.

How This Applies to Your Case

Mr. Sris, Owner and Founder of Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C., is a former prosecutor admitted to practice in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and New York. Since founding the firm in 1997, Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys have handled New York personal injury claims involving disputed fault, including cases where an insurer argued the claimant’s own conduct should reduce or bar recovery under either subsection of N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1411. The firm’s Of Counsel attorneys contract directly with Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C. and evaluate each case individually to determine which comparative fault rule applies and how the available evidence supports the client’s position. The intake line is staffed for 24/7 phone intake so a person with fault-related questions about a New York injury claim can begin the review process without delay.

Related Pages

• Trip and Fall Lawyer New York
• Truck Accident Lawyer New York
• Wrongful Death Lawyer New York
• Statute of Limitations for Personal Injury in New York

This page provides general information and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. Results may vary.

Attorney Advertising. Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C., principal office: 4008 Williamsburg Court, Fairfax, VA 22032. By appointment. Call (888) 437-7747 to schedule.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

This answer covers New York. Our page on personal injury lawyer New York sets out the whole process from start to finish.