Torts & Tort Damages Flashcards

A plaintiff in a New York personal injury action is found by a jury to be 60% at fault for an accident, with the defendant being 40% at fault. The plaintiff's total damages are determined to be $100,000. Under New York's principles of comparative negligence, how much will the plaintiff recover from the defendant?

Answer: $40,000

New York follows the doctrine of 'pure' comparative negligence (CPLR § 1411). Under this doctrine, a plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, but they are not barred from recovery even if their fault is greater than the defendant's. Therefore, the plaintiff can recover the portion of damages attributable to the defendant's fault, which is 40% of $100,000, or $40,000.

In a wrongful death action brought under New York's Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL), which of the following damages is generally NOT recoverable by the decedent's surviving family members?

Answer: The grief and emotional suffering of the surviving family members.

Under EPTL § 5-4.3, damages in a wrongful death action are limited to the 'pecuniary injuries' resulting from the decedent's death. This includes loss of support, voluntary assistance, potential inheritance, and medical and funeral expenses. It explicitly excludes non-pecuniary damages such as grief, sorrow, and loss of companionship.

A shopper at a large retail store in Queens slips and falls on a wet spot on the floor that was recently mopped by an employee who failed to put up a warning sign. In a lawsuit against the store, what standard of care will the court apply to the store's conduct?

Answer: A single standard of reasonable care under the circumstances.

In Basso v. Miller, the Court of Appeals abolished the common-law distinction between invitees and licensees. New York applies a single standard to lawful entrants: a landowner must act as a reasonable person in maintaining the property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk. (Trespassers are still owed only a duty to refrain from willful or wanton harm.)

An experienced skier is injured at a resort in the Adirondacks when she loses control on an icy patch on an expert-level trail. She sues the ski resort, alleging it was negligent in its grooming of the trail. Which doctrine will be the resort's strongest defense?

Answer: Primary Assumption of Risk

The doctrine of primary assumption of risk provides that a voluntary participant in a sporting or recreational activity consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport. Icy patches are an inherent risk of skiing. As long as the ski resort's conduct did not unreasonably increase the inherent risks of the activity, the doctrine will likely bar the plaintiff's claim.

In a personal injury lawsuit, a jury awards the plaintiff $50,000 for past medical expenses. Evidence at a post-trial hearing under CPLR 4545 shows that the plaintiff's health insurance carrier has already paid $40,000 of those medical bills. The plaintiff paid $2,000 in health insurance premiums in the two years prior to the injury. How will the court most likely adjust the $50,000 award for medical expenses?

Answer: The award will be reduced by $38,000.

New York's collateral source rule, codified in CPLR 4545, requires the court to reduce a personal injury award by the amount of compensation the plaintiff received from sources other than the defendant, such as health insurance. However, this reduction is offset by the amount the plaintiff paid for the insurance benefit (e.g., premiums) for the two-year period immediately preceding the accrual of the action. Therefore, the court will reduce the award by the insurance payment ($40,000) minus the premiums paid ($2,000), resulting in a net reduction of $38,000.

A plaintiff brings a strict products liability action against the manufacturer of a power saw, alleging a manufacturing defect. Which of the following is the essential element the plaintiff must prove to succeed on this specific claim in New York?

Answer: That the saw, as it left the manufacturer's control, was not in the condition intended by the manufacturer and was a substantial factor in causing the injury.

In a strict products liability claim based on a manufacturing defect, the focus is not on the manufacturer's conduct (negligence) or the overall product line (design defect). The core of the claim is that the specific unit sold to the plaintiff deviated from the manufacturer's own intended design and that this deviation made the product unreasonably dangerous and caused the injury.