In a fascinating 4-3 split decision in Rodriguez v. City of New York, the Court of Appeals has tackled what one judge has called “a vexing issue regarding comparative fault”—namely, whether a tort plaintiff must establish that there are no material disputed facts about whether he or she was comparatively negligent in order to prevail on a motion for partial summary judgment as to a defendant’s liability. The majority, in an opinion authored by Judge Paul G. Feinman, held that the plaintiff does not have an obligation to establish the absence of his or her own comparative negligence to obtain partial summary judgment. The dissent, led by Judge Michael Garcia, takes the opposite view, stating that the established, more fair rule is to allow the jury to consider both the plaintiff’s and defendant’s conduct at the same time at trial. The majority’s decision displaces the court’s prior ruling in Thoma v. Ronai, which lower courts had interpreted as holding that summary judgment on liability is inappropriate where questions of fact exist as to a plaintiff’s own negligence.

The case arises out of an accident in a New York City sanitation facility that left plaintiff permanently disabled. Plaintiff and his sanitation co-workers were working to put chains and plows on vehicles so they could remove snow from the roads. A truck was backing into a garage bay to be outfitted when the driver hit the brakes quickly and the truck skidded backwards into the rear of a parked car in the facility. At that time, plaintiff was walking in front of the parked car. When the truck hit the parked car, the parked car was pushed into plaintiff and pinned him against a rack of tires. He suffered back injuries, had a spinal fusion surgery, underwent a series of lumbar steroid injections, and engaged in extensive physical therapy. Plaintiff sued the City of New York and argued that the City co-workers failed to maintain control of the truck; that the truck was moving too quickly; and that the worker guiding the truck into the bay was on the wrong side of the truck and gave poor directions. The City maintained that plaintiff was at fault because he walked behind a sanitation truck moving in reverse in icy conditions.