Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine used in personal injury cases to determine how much responsibility each party bears for an accident and how that affects the compensation they can receive or need to pay. While the concept remains consistent across the United States, its application varies significantly from state to state. In particular, New York and Washington, located on opposite coasts, offer distinct approaches to determining comparative negligence that can lead to vastly different case outcomes. 

The Concept of Negligence

Negligence is a foundational concept in concept in personal injury law, determining when one party is legally responsible for harm caused to another. Understanding the key elements of negligence is important because they establish the foundation for proving fault and securing compensation in personal injury cases. Without a clear grasp of these elements, it becomes challenging to build a strong legal argument or determine liability accurately. The elements of negligence are:

• Duty of Care: Negligence begins with a duty of care, which refers to the legal obligation one party has to avoid causing harm to another. Duty of care varies depending on the relationship between the parties and the circumstances of the situation.

• Breach of Duty: The standard is based on what a ‘reasonable person’ would do in similar circumstances.

• Causation: For negligence to be established, a breach of duty must have directly caused the injury or harm. 

• Damages: To succeed in a negligence claim, the plaintiff must have suffered actual harm or damages as a result of the breach. These damages can be economic, such as medical expenses and lost wages, or non-economic, such as pain and suffering.

Comparative Negligence in New York: An East Coast Perspective

New York’s approach to comparative negligence is rooted in a “pure comparative” system. A pure comparative system allows plaintiffs to recover damages regardless of their level of fault, with their recovery reduced by their percentage of fault. Some key components of New York’s comparative negligence laws include:

• No Threshold for Recovery: Unlike modified comparative negligence states, where a plaintiff might be barred from recovery if they are 50% or more at fault, New York imposes no such threshold. In New York, plaintiffs can recover damages regardless of their level of fault. 
• Joint and Several Liability: In New York, if multiple defendants are found liable, they may be subject to joint and several liability. This means that if one defendant is unable to pay their share of the damages, the other defendants may be required to cover the shortfall.

• Serious Injury Threshold in Motor Vehicle Cases: For motor vehicle accidents, New York law requires plaintiffs to meet a “serious injury” threshold to recover non-economic damages like pain and suffering. The serious injury threshold adds an additional layer of complexity in personal injury cases related to car accidents. 

• Set-Offs for Collateral Sources: New York law requires that any compensation a plaintiff receives from collateral sources, like insurance, be deducted from the damages awarded. This prevents plaintiffs from recovering twice for the same injury.

These nuances can have a significant impact on the outcomes of personal injury cases, influencing both the strategies employed by each party’s legal counsel, as well as the final compensation awarded to plaintiffs. 

Comparative Negligence in Washington: A West Coast Perspective

Washington follows a “pure comparative negligence” system similar to New York. Under this system, plaintiffs can recover damages regardless of their degree of fault; however, the amount they recover is reduced in accordance with their percentage of fault. Like New York’s system, Washington’s pure comparative negligence system has its own specific characteristics that influence how the courts handle fault and damages in personal injury cases. These key aspects include: 

• No Fault Threshold: Unlike some states, Washington does not impose a fault threshold. Rather, plaintiffs can recover damages, even if they are 99% at fault, with their recovery reduced by their percentage of fault. Having no fault threshold allows plaintiffs to seek compensation even in cases where they bear most of the responsibility for the incident. 

• Joint and Several Liability (with limitations): Like New York, Washington applies joint and several liability for economic damages, such as medical expenses and lost wages. However, Washington differs from New York in that it does not apply joint and several liability for non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering. Instead, each defendant is only responsible for the level of non-economic damages corresponding to their share of fault, which can affect the total recovery a plaintiff receives, particularly when multiple defendants are involved. 

• No Serious Injury Threshold in Motor Vehicle Cases: Washington does not impose a serious injury threshold in motor vehicle cases. Under Washington’s pure comparative negligence system, plaintiffs can recover any type of damages regardless of the severity of their injuries.

• No Collateral Source Rule: Washington law does not have a collateral source rule, meaning that plaintiffs can recover the full amount of damages awarded without a reduction for compensation received from other sources, like insurance. Not having a collateral rule can result in higher overall compensation for plaintiffs.

It is important that all parties understand these factors so that they are able to plan their legal strategies and anticipate case outcomes accordingly. 

Key Differences Between New York and Washington

The differences between New York and Washington’s comparative negligence laws can have a direct impact on the outcome of personal injury cases. These variations influence how fault is assigned, the strategies used by legal counsel, and the amount of compensation plaintiffs can receive. Understanding these distinctions is important for effectively preparing and arguing a case in either state. 

Joint and Several Liability

Joint and several liability determines how responsibility for damages is shared among multiple defendants in a personal injury case. The joint and several liability doctrine can significantly impact the amount of compensation a plaintiff receives, especially when multiple parties are at fault. The application of joint and several liability differs between New York and Washington, influencing how cases are resolved in each state. 

New York

In New York, defendants 50% or more at fault may be liable for the full damages, regardless of their share of responsibility..

Washington

Though Washington apply the doctrine of joint and several liability to economic damages, such as medical expenses and lost wages, it does not apply it to non-economic damages. For non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, each defendant is only responsible for their percentage of fault. 

Fault Thresholds

Fault thresholds can play a significant role in determining how much compensation a plaintiff can receive in a personal injury case. Fault thresholds dictate whether a plaintiff can recover damages, and how their compensation is adjusted based on their level of fault. The approach to fault thresholds differs significantly between New York and Washington.

New York

New York operates under a pure comparative fault negligence system with no fault threshold. Plaintiffs can recover damages even if they are 99% at fault. However, the compensation they receive is reduced by their percentage of fault. New York’s system makes it so plaintiffs are always able to recover some portion of their damages, with the exact amount directly tied to their degree of responsibility in the incident. 

Washington

Washington also follows a pure comparative negligence system, similar to New York, allowing plaintiffs to recover damages regardless of their fault level. The amount of recovery is reduced in proportion to the plaintiff’s share of fault. Unlike New York, Washington’s system does not impose any additional limitations, which means that plaintiffs can seek compensation even in cases where they bear the majority of the fault. 

Collateral Source Rule

The collateral source rule addresses whether compensation from outside sources, such as insurance, should affect the damages awarded in personal injury cases. This rule varies between states and can significantly influence the final amount of damages a plaintiff receives. It is important to understand the stance that your state takes on the collateral source rule so that you can accurately assess your potential liability and compensation.

New York

New York applies the collateral source rule, requiring that any compensation a plaintiff receives from collateral sources be deducted from the damages awarded by the court. In other words, if a plaintiff has already received payments from insurance or other sources, their recovery from the defendant is reduced by that amount. The purpose of this rule is to prevent plaintiffs from receiving double recovery from the same injury.

Washington

Washington does not follow the collateral source rule. Rather, in Washington, plaintiffs can recover the full amount of damages awarded by the court, regardless of any compensation received from other sources. Washington’s approach can result in higher overall compensation for plaintiffs, as they are not required to offset their damages by the amounts received from collateral sources.

Serious Injury Threshold in Motor Vehicle Cases

New York requires plaintiffs to meet a serious injury threshold to claim non-economic damages in motor vehicle cases, unlike Washington, where no such threshold exists.

Practical Implications for Personal Injury Cases

The approach to comparative negligence in each state has a substantial impact on how personal injury cases are negotiated and settled. Understanding the specific laws in New York and Washington can help guide strategies to maximize compensation and reach favorable settlements.

New York

In New York, the comparative negligence system, combined with the specific legal nuances discussed, plays an important role in shaping legal strategies. Key factors that influence these strategies include:

• Joint and Several Liability: The possibility of joint and several liability, particularly for economic damages, can heavily influence settlement strategies. For example, defendants may opt to settle early to avoid the risk of being held responsible for the entire judgment if they are found to be 50% or more at fault. 

• Serious Injury Threshold: In motor vehicle cases, the requirement to meet a serious injury threshold for non-economic damages plays a serious role in settlement negotiations. For example, plaintiffs must demonstrate that their injuries qualify, which can impact the overall value of their claim.

• Strategic Leverage: Plaintiffs may use the threat of trial, where joint and several liability could result in significant financial exposure for a defendant, to push for a higher settlement offer. 

Washington

Washington’s pure comparative negligence system, along with its specific legal principles, directly impacts how settlement negotiations are approached in personal injury cases. Key considerations in these negotiations include:

• Pure Comparative Negligence: The ability for plaintiffs to recover damages regardless of their fault level encourages settlement, particularly when the plaintiff bears a significant portion of the fault. Defendants may prefer to settle rather than risk a trial where some level of liability is inevitable. 

• No Joint and Several Liability for Non-Economic Damages: Since each defendant is only responsible for their share of non-economic damages, this can limit settlement amounts. Defendants are less likely to face the risk of paying more than their fair share, leading to more calculated settlement offers.

• Broad Claims in Motor Vehicle Cases: The absence of a serious injury threshold allows for a wider range of claims in motor vehicle accidents, potentially leading to higher settlement demands. This can result in more complex negotiations, especially when multiple defendants are involved.

Disclaimer: “The content in this article is provided for general knowledge. It does not constitute legal advice, and readers should seek advice from qualified legal professionals regarding particular cases or situations.”

Published by: Martin De Juan