NY Torts & Tort Damages 1 Flashcards

Under CPLR 214(5), what is the statute of limitations for a personal injury action based on negligence in New York?

Answer: Three years from the date of injury

CPLR 214(5) establishes a three-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims. The period generally begins to run on the date the injury is sustained, not when the plaintiff discovers it (absent a discovery exception such as latent disease under CPLR 214-c).

Under New York law, when is a dog owner strictly liable for injuries inflicted by their dog?

Answer: Only when the owner knew or should have known of the dog's vicious propensities

New York does not impose automatic strict liability for all dog bites. Under Collier v. Zambito, strict liability attaches only when the owner had prior knowledge—actual or constructive—of the dog's vicious propensities. A single prior act of aggression (not necessarily a bite) can be sufficient to establish that knowledge.

Under CPLR 1601 (Article 16), how is a defendant whose equitable share of fault is 50% or less treated with respect to non-economic damages?

Answer: Severally liable only for their proportionate share of non-economic damages

CPLR 1601 limits joint and several liability for non-economic loss: a defendant whose share of fault does not exceed 50% is liable only for its own proportionate share of non-economic damages (it remains jointly and severally liable for economic damages). Defendants more than 50% at fault stay jointly and severally liable. CPLR 1602 lists exceptions (e.g., intentional torts, reckless disregard, certain environmental torts, motor vehicle owner liability).

Under New York's General Obligations Law § 11-101 (the Dram Shop Act), a vendor who unlawfully sells alcohol may be held liable for injuries caused by an intoxicated patron when the vendor:

Answer: Sold or provided alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person who then caused injury to a third party

GOL § 11-101 gives an injured third party a cause of action against a person who unlawfully sells or assists in procuring alcohol for a person whose intoxication causes the injury. A sale to a visibly intoxicated person is unlawful (Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65(2)). Visible intoxication at the time of service is the critical element; liability does not extend to serving a patron who showed no signs of intoxication.

To invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in a New York negligence action, the plaintiff must establish that:

Answer: The accident is of a type that ordinarily does not occur absent negligence and was caused by an instrumentality in the defendant's exclusive control

Res ipsa loquitur allows a jury to infer negligence when: (1) the occurrence is of a kind that would not ordinarily happen without negligence; (2) it was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the defendant's exclusive control; and (3) the injury was not due to the plaintiff's own voluntary action. The doctrine shifts the burden of going forward to the defendant to offer an explanation.

Under New York strict products liability law, a plaintiff injured by a defective product must prove:

Answer: That the product was defective and the defect was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injury

New York recognizes strict products liability under Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co. A plaintiff must show that the product was in a defective condition when it left the manufacturer's control and that the defect was a substantial factor in causing the injury. The plaintiff need not prove negligence or that the manufacturer knew of the defect—the inquiry focuses on the product's condition, not the defendant's conduct.