How “Proximate Cause” Can Make or Break Your NYC Bicycle Accident Case
In most personal injury cases, the plaintiff must prove the defendant’s actions were the “proximate cause” of the plaintiff’s accident. Proximate cause refers to the relationship between an action and its outcome. To give a simple example, if Joseph runs a red light and hits another vehicle driven by Lisa in the intersection, Lisa could bring a personal injury claim on the basis that Joseph’s negligent violation of traffic laws was the proximate cause of their cars colliding.
Suffolk Town Faces Personal Injury Claim from Injured Bicyclist
It is, of course, possible for an accident to have more than one proximate cause. In some cases, both the plaintiff and the defendant’s actions may have contributed to an accident. Even then, however, that does not prevent the plaintiff from still taking legal action to recover compensation due to the defendant’s negligence.
A recent decision from the Appellate Division, Second Department, provides a helpful real-world illustration of this principle. This case involved a collision between a bicyclist and a garbage truck. The bicyclist (the plaintiff) was riding eastbound on a two-way street in the Town of Islip. While attempting to cross an intersection, the town-owned garbage truck, which had been traveling along the same route, made a left turn and struck the plaintiff.
Based on testimony given by both the plaintiff and the garbage truck during pretrial discovery, the Town moved to dismiss the case at summary judgment. Essentially, the Town’s position was that the plaintiff failed to watch where he was going and he should have seen the garbage truck before he tried to cross the street. But as the Second Department explained, even if that was one proximate cause of the accident, a jury could find the garbage truck driver’s negligence was also a proximate cause. For that reason, the Second Department affirmed the trial judge’s ruling denying summary judgment for the Town.
Multiple Causes and Pure Comparative Fault
So what happens if a jury decides there were two (or more) proximate causes of an accident? New York follows a rule of pure comparative fault in these cases. What this means is that the trier of fact must decide who was legally responsible for the accident and apportion the percentage fault among them. If the plaintiff’s actions were a proximate cause of the accident, any compensation he receives from the negligent defendants must be reduced accordingly. In other words, if a jury decides the plaintiff’s actions were a 40 percent cause of the accident, the defendant would only have to pay for 60 percent of the plaintiff’s total accident-related losses.
Contact a New York City Bicycle Accident Lawyer
Comparative fault often comes up in the context of bicycle accidents, as motorists are quick to try and blame the injured bicyclist for their own injuries. That is why, if you are in this situation, it is best to work with an experienced New York City bicycle accident attorney. Contact the Law Offices of Jaroslawicz & Jaros, PLLC, at 212-227-2780 to schedule a consultation. We serve clients throughout New York City and Long Island.
Source:
scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14454029325035286471