The New York Court of Appeals recently issued an important decision on summary judgment in the case of
Rodriguez v. City of New York
.
Summary judgment is a judgment that is entered by a judge for one party and against another without a full trial. It may be granted to resolve the whole case or only a particular issue or issues (partial summary judgment).
When a party makes a motion for summary judgment, she is asking the judge to decide the case or issue in her favor before trial.
In a
personal injury
case in which the fault of the defendant is clear – where the defendant ran a red light at an intersection and broadsided the plaintiff’s car, for example – the injured plaintiff often makes a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of the defendant’s liability.
The motion, usually made after discovery is completed, asks the judge to rule based on deposition testimony and other evidence produced during the discovery process that the defendant was negligent and that the defendant’s negligence caused plaintiff’s injury. If the judge rules in the plaintiff’s favor, then the case is scheduled for trial only on the issue of damages – how much money the defendant must pay in order to compensate the plaintiff.
The
Rodriguez
case deals with a complication that arises in personal injury cases in which the defendant alleges that the plaintiff herself bears some of the responsibility for her injury. New York’s “comparative fault” statute allows a plaintiff in that situation to recover on her claim, but reduces her damage award by the percentage of her responsibility, as determined by the jury.
In a rear-end collision, for example, a jury could find a defendant’s negligence in following too closely to be 80% of the cause of the crash and plaintiff’s negligence in braking suddenly to be 20% of the cause. In that case, the damages awarded by the jury for plaintiff’s injuries would be reduced by 20%.
The question in
Rodriguez
was whether a judge could grant the plaintiff partial summary judgment on the defendant’s liability without first establishing that he was free from negligence himself.
Going forward after
Rodriguez
, a plaintiff who moves for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability will have to prove that the defendant was negligent and that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the accident/injury, but will no longer have to demonstrate that she, herself, is free from fault in order to prevail on the motion.
As a result, we are likely to see more motions by plaintiffs for partial summary judgment, more issues resolved before trial, more settlements and earlier settlements, allowing the parties to avoid the time and expense of trial.
Even where a trial is still necessary, it may be shortened by resolving some of the issues in advance and focusing the jury’s attention only on issues that are truly in dispute.
Granting summary judgment on liability issues that are clear will also help avoid erroneous unfavorable verdicts which, despite being fairly rare and correctable on appeal, mean months of delay and thousands of dollars in unwarranted expenses for the plaintiff.
Finally, to the extent that
Rodriguez
leads to more motions for partial summary judgment on liability being granted, it will be beneficial to plaintiffs because once judgment on liability is entered, interest starts to run at the statutory rate of 9%, eliminating any defense benefit of stalling.
All in all, the
Rodriguez
decision is a “win” not only for Mr. Rodriguez, but for New York plaintiffs in general.
