New York Jury Instruction - 7.7.1 General Instruction - Comparative Negligence Defense

• Category: Federal - Jury Instructions
• State: Multi-State
• Control #: US-11CF-7-7-1
• Format: Word; Rich Text

Description

This form contains sample jury instructions, to be used across the United States. These questions are to be used only as a model, and should be altered to more perfectly fit your own cause of action needs. New York Jury Instruction — 7.7.1 GeneraInstructionio— - Comparative Negligence Defense is a legal instruction provided to the jury in a negligence case in New York. It pertains specifically to the defense of comparative negligence. Here is a detailed description of this jury instruction: In negligence cases, the concept of comparative negligence comes into play when determining liability and damages. Comparative negligence is a defense that allows the defendant to argue that the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the accident or injuries they suffered. Under New York law, if the plaintiff is found to be partially at fault for their injuries, their compensation may be reduced proportionally to their degree of fault. This jury instruction serves as a guideline for the jury to evaluate and apportion fault between the plaintiff and the defendant. It instructs the jury to consider the evidence presented during the trial and determine the percentage of fault for each party involved. The instruction helps the jury understand that the plaintiff's recovery will be reduced based on their own degree of negligence, if any. It is important to note that New York follows a pure comparative negligence system, which means that even if the plaintiff is found to be mostly responsible for their injuries (e.g., 90% at fault), they can still recover damages, albeit reduced by their percentage of fault (e.g., 10% recovery). Different types of New York Jury Instruction — 7.7.1 GeneraInstructionio— - Comparative Negligence Defense may vary based on the specific circumstances and facts of the case. Some possible variations could be: 1. Proximate Cause Instruction: This type of instruction may address the element of proximate cause in comparative negligence cases. It would guide the jury in determining whether the plaintiff's negligence was a proximate cause of their injuries and whether it should be apportioned. 2. Burden of Proof Instruction: In some cases, the jury instruction may focus on the burden of proof concerning the comparative negligence defense. It would explain the defendant's responsibility to prove that the plaintiff was negligent and that their negligence contributed to the accident. 3. Mitigation of Damages Instruction: This instruction could be relevant in cases where the defendant argues that the plaintiff failed to mitigate their damages, thereby affecting the apportionment of fault and potentially reducing the plaintiff's recovery. Overall, New York Jury Instruction — 7.7.1 GeneraInstructionio— - Comparative Negligence Defense provides the jury with guidance on how to assess the plaintiff's negligence, determine the extent of fault, and proportionately allocate damages based on each party's degree of responsibility. These instructions play a crucial role in ensuring a fair and just outcome in negligence cases.

New York Jury Instruction — 7.7.1 GeneraInstructionio— - Comparative Negligence Defense is a legal instruction provided to the jury in a negligence case in New York. It pertains specifically to the defense of comparative negligence. Here is a detailed description of this jury instruction: In negligence cases, the concept of comparative negligence comes into play when determining liability and damages. Comparative negligence is a defense that allows the defendant to argue that the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the accident or injuries they suffered. Under New York law, if the plaintiff is found to be partially at fault for their injuries, their compensation may be reduced proportionally to their degree of fault. This jury instruction serves as a guideline for the jury to evaluate and apportion fault between the plaintiff and the defendant. It instructs the jury to consider the evidence presented during the trial and determine the percentage of fault for each party involved. The instruction helps the jury understand that the plaintiff's recovery will be reduced based on their own degree of negligence, if any. It is important to note that New York follows a pure comparative negligence system, which means that even if the plaintiff is found to be mostly responsible for their injuries (e.g., 90% at fault), they can still recover damages, albeit reduced by their percentage of fault (e.g., 10% recovery). Different types of New York Jury Instruction — 7.7.1 GeneraInstructionio— - Comparative Negligence Defense may vary based on the specific circumstances and facts of the case. Some possible variations could be: 1. Proximate Cause Instruction: This type of instruction may address the element of proximate cause in comparative negligence cases. It would guide the jury in determining whether the plaintiff's negligence was a proximate cause of their injuries and whether it should be apportioned. 2. Burden of Proof Instruction: In some cases, the jury instruction may focus on the burden of proof concerning the comparative negligence defense. It would explain the defendant's responsibility to prove that the plaintiff was negligent and that their negligence contributed to the accident. 3. Mitigation of Damages Instruction: This instruction could be relevant in cases where the defendant argues that the plaintiff failed to mitigate their damages, thereby affecting the apportionment of fault and potentially reducing the plaintiff's recovery. Overall, New York Jury Instruction — 7.7.1 GeneraInstructionio— - Comparative Negligence Defense provides the jury with guidance on how to assess the plaintiff's negligence, determine the extent of fault, and proportionately allocate damages based on each party's degree of responsibility. These instructions play a crucial role in ensuring a fair and just outcome in negligence cases.