Carlos Rodriguez, Appellant, v. City of N.Y., Respondent. - 2018 NY Slip Op 02287, 31 N.Y.3d 312, 76 N.Y.S.3d 898, 101 N.E.3d 366

Rule:

Placing the burden on the plaintiff to show an absence of comparative fault is inconsistent with the plain language of CPLR 1412. In 1975, New York adopted a system of pure comparative negligence, and, in so doing, directed courts to consider a plaintiff's comparative fault only when considering the amount of damages a defendant owes to plaintiff.

Facts:

Plaintiff Carlos Rodriguez was employed by the New York City Department of Sanitation (DOS) as a garage utility worker. Plaintiff was injured while outfitting sanitation trucks with tire chains and plows to enable them to clear the streets of snow and ice. Subsequently, plaintiff commenced the present negligence action against the City of New York. After discovery, he moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant's liability pursuant to CPLR 3212. Defendant opposed the motion and cross-moved for summary judgment in its favor. The Supreme Court denied both motions. In denying plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, the Supreme Court held that there were triable issues of fact regarding foreseeability, causation, and plaintiff's comparative negligence. The Appellate Division affirmed. Plaintiff appealed. 

Issue:

Should the plaintiff establish the absence of his own comparative negligence, thereby warranting the denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of defendant's liability pursuant to CPLR 3212? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court held that the plaintiff did not bear the double burden of establishing a prima facie case of the city's liability and the absence of his or her own comparative fault and was not required to demonstrate the absence of his own comparative fault to obtain partial summary judgment on the city's liability. According to the Court, placing the burden on the plaintiff to show an absence of comparative fault is inconsistent with the plain language of CPLR 1412. Accordingly, the Court held that the appellate division erred in affirming the Supreme Court's denial of a motion for partial summary judgment filed by the plaintiff.