New York State is one of only twelve pure comparative liability states in the country.  In a pure comparative liability jurisdiction like New York, a plaintiff can be up to 99% responsible for the happening of the accident and still recover 1% of damages from any party whose negligence proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries.  See Eli K. Best and John J. Donahue III, Jury Nullification in Modified Comparative Negligence Regimes, 79 University of Chicago Law Review 945, 949 (2012); see also CPLR § 1411.

“CPLR § 1411 codifies the rule that any culpable conduct attributable to the plaintiff, including his or her negligence or assumption of risk, does not bar the plaintiff’s recovery of damages, but shall diminish that recovery in proportion to the culpable conduct of the defendant.” Roman v. A1 Limousine, Inc., 76 A.D.3d 552, 553; 907 N.Y.S.2d 251 (2nd Dept. 2010).

“A plaintiff’s culpable conduct no longer stands as a bar to recovery in an action for personal injury, injury to property or wrongful death. . . . [CPLR § 1411], enacted in 1975, substituted the notion of comparative fault for the common-law rule [of contributory fault] that barred a plaintiff from recovering anything if he or she was responsible to any degree for the injury.” Tselebis v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 72 A.D.3d 198, 200; 895 N.Y.S.2d 389; (2nd Dept. 2010).