Comparative Negligence: Why It Matters

In every personal injury case, including bicycle accidents, a plaintiff asserts that he or she suffered injuries because the defendant was negligent, meaning the defendant did something that should have been done, e.g., texting while driving, speeding, ran a STOP sign, etc.

In return, defendants assert that the plaintiff’s injuries were the result of the plaintiff’s own negligence: riding two abreast, general failure to abide by the rules of the road, etc.

In New York, there is a legal principle called comparative negligence, which means that when an accident occurs, the fault or negligence of each party involved is based upon their respective contributions to the accident.

Why does the law account for comparative negligence? Because it’s rare that one party is 100% liable for an accident. The quintessential exception is when a driver is rear-ended while waiting for a traffic light. If you’re sitting in your car while at a complete stop waiting for a red light when another driver slams into you from behind, you can be confident that you did nothing wrong and, as a result, you in no way contributed to the negligence that caused the accident.

Again, however, that’s the exception. Who’s at fault when two drivers approach an intersection controlled by 4-way STOP signs and end up colliding when both of them fail to slow down? Sounds like both drivers would be found to having negligently contributed to the accident having occurred, so maybe 50/50? Possibly, but we would need more facts: did either driver slow, how fast were they driving, did one driver reach the intersection first and, therefore, have the right of way, etc.

If you’ve been injured in a bicycle accident, why should you care about comparative negligence? Because it has an impact on a possible settlement or verdict. The math behind it is simple but important.

Let’s say a cyclist suffers a broken ankle as the direct result of a being hit by a car. And let’s say both sides agree that the monetary value of the injury is about $100,000. If the defendant is believed to be 100% liable for the accident, then the plaintiff is entitled to the full 100%. But if the plaintiff is found to be 20% at fault for the accident, then the $100,000 is reduced by 20%, so the settlement is now only $80,000.

How are such percentages quantified? It’s probably more art than science, but here’s another example.

Chris Cyclist is heading west on his new Pinarello Dogma and he’s approaching an intersection controlled by a traffic light. At the same time, Don Driver is behind the wheel of his 1998 Chevy Suburban driving north toward the same intersection. The speed is 35 MPH. Chris Cyclist is pedaling along at 20 MPH, well below the limit. Don Driver, on the other hand, is barreling at 60 MPH, almost twice the limit.

Chris reaches the intersection a second or two before Don Driver. Chris has a red light, so New York Vehicle & Traffic Law obligates Chris to stop for the red light. Unfortunately, Chris doesn’t even slow when he begins making a right turn. Maybe he’s thinking that, because he’s making a right and he just passed one of those SHARE THE ROAD signs, he doesn’t have to come to a stop. Instead, Chris makes his turn albeit while staying near the solid white line on the side of the road.

Don Driver reaches the intersection half a second after Chris Cyclist, still chugging along at 60 MPH. He has a green light so he has the right of way despite being 25 MPH above the limit. He sees Chris Cyclist failing to yield to his right of way so, while he usually tries to give cyclists a few extra feet of space when passing, he instead thinks, “Eff this guy,” and keeps his Suburban in the center of the lane.

Even when such a large SUV drives in the middle of a lane, there’s usually still a few feet of space that separate a cyclist and the motor vehicle so long as the cyclist is staying as far right as possible. However, at this particular intersection, there are a sh*t-ton of potholes littering the solid white line. Because Chris Cyclists’ new Dogma cost him close to $8,000, there’s no way he’s riding through those so, without giving it a second thought, he quickly swerves to the left.

It is extremely scary for both Chris Cyclist and Don Driver when the passenger side of Don’s Suburban swipes Chris’s left shoulder. It’s even more horrifying when the side view mirror knocks Chris clear off his bike into the grass on the side of the road.

Both driver and cyclist are more than upset but Chris is the only one who ends up with a busted collar bone. If Chris decides to hire a lawyer to bring a claim for his injuries, how will the attorneys decide who is at fault?

Under those circumstances, it appears that both Chris and Don were negligent to some degree: Chris failed to stop at a red light and Don was speeding. So how does that play out under the principle of comparative negligence?

It may be that Chris could be considered to be more than 50% responsible for causing the injuries. Even if Don had been driving at the limit of 35 MPH, the accident still could have occurred, but perhaps the injuries would not have been so severe. However, had Chris stopped at the red light and yielded to Don’s right of way, then perhaps the defendant’s argument is that the accident could have been avoided entirely.

Ultimately, we would want more information, i.e., Don’s driving record, whether Chris had ever injured that collar bone previously, etc.

But, again, the idea of comparative negligence is important. Bicycle accidents involving cars happen all too often, unfortunately, but the more that cyclists obey the rules of the road, the more advantage they hold in the face of an accident at the hands of a negligent driver.