We all know that motor vehicle accidents are part of life in New York City, given the volume of traffic, the various types of vehicles on the road, the fast pace, and varying degrees of driver competency and due care. These accidents result in thousands of personal injury claims and lawsuits. Here, we discuss some of the important aspects of car accidents in New York, and analyze a few relevant provisions of New York State law, referencing landmark cases.
By understanding the basic legal framework, you can better understand your rights if you have the misfortune to be involved in an auto accident, as well as the duties and responsibilities of drivers, pedestrians, and others.
Note: This article does not intend to offer legal advice in a particular case, and you should always consult immediately with a competent attorney and NYC car accident attorney if you are involved in an accident.
New York State Laws Governing Motor Vehicle Accidents
New York State law contains several provisions related to motor vehicle accidents, and understanding these laws can be crucial for those involved in an accident. Some of the key laws include the following:
- (N.Y. Ins. Law § 5101 et seq.): The No-Fault Insurance Law mandates that all registered motor vehicles in New York carry no-fault insurance. Under the No-Fault system, an injured person can recover economic losses, such as medical expenses and lost wages, from their insurance company, regardless of who was at fault for the accident. Importantly, there is a 30-day time limit to file for No-Fault benefits after an accident – move quickly to secure an attorney to help you with this.
- Comparative Negligence (N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1411): New York follows the doctrine of comparative negligence, which means that a person’s damages will be reduced in proportion to their degree of fault. This rule allows accident victims to recover damages even if they were partially at fault, if they were not entirely responsible for the accident.
- Statute of Limitations (N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214): In New York, the statute of limitations for filing a personal injury claim related to a motor vehicle accident is three years from the date of the accident. Failing to file within this time frame may result in the loss of the right to seek compensation. However, if the vehicle is a government vehicle, car, bus or truck, there will be a much shorter statute of limitations for filing a Notice of Claim or Notice of Intention to sue – this is generally 90 days from the date of the accident. Because of this short deadline, you should immediately consult with a good accident attorney to protect your rights.
There are a couple landmark cases or precedents that are worth mentioning and have shaped the legal landscape for motor vehicle accidents in New York.
- Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339 (1928): In this case, the New York Court of Appeals, the highest Court in New York State, established the concept of foreseeability in determining whether a duty of care exists between parties. This is a famous ruling among lawyers and accident attorneys and has had a significant impact on lawsuits and negligence claims related to motor vehicle accidents, as it requires that the harm suffered by the plaintiff must be a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s actions.
- Martin v. Herzog, 228 N.Y. 164 (1920): This case emphasized the importance of statutory violations as evidence of negligence. The plaintiff, Martin, was driving a buggy without lights at night and was struck by the defendant, Herzog. The court held that the plaintiff’s violation of a statute requiring lights on a buggy at night was negligence per se, and the jury was required to consider this statutory violation as evidence of negligence.
- Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 308 (1980): This is an important case in the personal injury motor vehicle lawsuit area. Here, the Court clarified the foreseeability test for proximate cause in negligence cases. Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 308 (1980), is a New York negligence case that clarified the foreseeability test for proximate cause. In simpler terms, it addressed the question of whether someone could be held responsible for the consequences of their actions, even if the precise consequences were not totally predictable. It is worth mentioning the facts of this case: Plaintiff Derdiarian was working on a construction site for Defendant Felix Contracting Corp. The construction site was close to a very busy roadway (think about the streets of NYC). While Derdiarian was working, a passing driver suffered an epileptic seizure, lost control of his car, and struck Derdiarian, causing very severe injuries. Derdiarian’s accident attorneys sued Felix Contracting Corp., claiming that the company was negligent in not providing adequate safety measures to protect workers from nearby traffic. The Court found the company liable for the injuries sustained by Derdiarian, reasoning that, while the exact sequence of events might not have been foreseeable (i.e., an epileptic driver having a seizure and hitting a worker), it was still foreseeable that a car could accidentally enter the construction site and injure a worker. The Court decided that as long as the general nature of the risk was foreseeable, though not the precise type of accident itself, it was sufficient to establish a defendant’s liability. In simpler terms, the court concluded that it didn’t matter whether the company could actually predict an epileptic driver would cause the accident; what mattered was that the company should have anticipated the possibility of a car entering the construction site and injuring a worker, and taken appropriate safety measures.
- Rodriguez v. City of New York, 31 N.Y.3d 312 (2018): In this more recent case, the New York Court of Appeals held that, under the comparative negligence rule, the plaintiff’s responsibility or culpability in causing an accident should not be considered when determining whether a defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the injury. This decision clarified the application of comparative negligence in personal injury cases involving motor vehicle accidents.
- Saarinen v. Kerr, 84 N.Y.2d 494 (1994), the Court rules that a plaintiff’s failure to use a seatbelt can be considered as evidence of comparative negligence.
- Bethel v. New York City Transit Authority, 92 N.Y.2d 348 (1998): Court established the “emergency doctrine,” which may excuse a driver’s negligence when faced with a sudden and unforeseen emergency.
Those are just a few of the important cases in motor vehicle and negligence cases. Hopefully, you will never need this information and you will never have the misfortune of getting into a serious car accident, truck accident or other motor vehicle accident and need a personal injury attorney. Perhaps this will also give you some further insight into avoiding a personal injury accident and make you a safer driver!