NY Budget Threatens Cyclist & Pedestrian Rights – Know the Risks

New York pedestrians and cyclists already navigate a landscape of inherent risk – contending with vehicles, opening doors, distracted drivers, and limited space. A recent proposal from Governor Hochul’s office could significantly alter the legal landscape for those injured in traffic incidents, potentially shifting financial burdens away from responsible parties and onto victims and taxpayers.

Redefining ‘Serious Injury’

New York’s current no-fault insurance system provides immediate medical care and lost wage compensation, up to $50,000, regardless of fault. However, to pursue damages exceeding this amount, an injury must meet the legal definition of “serious injury.” The governor’s proposal seeks to eliminate a long-standing criterion for this definition: an injury that prevents normal life activities for the first 90 days after a crash.

Did You Know? For decades, New York law has defined a “serious injury” as one that prevents an individual from living their normal life for at least 90 days.

This change could mean that individuals suffering from severe concussions, traumatic brain injuries, herniated discs, or spinal damage could be denied the right to sue for full compensation. The proposal suggests these injuries are “not serious enough,” despite the significant disruption they can cause, particularly for those in financially vulnerable positions.

Letting Big Companies Off the Hook

Many crashes involve multiple contributing factors, including driver negligence, roadway design flaws, and other negligent actions. The legal principle of “joint and several liability” currently holds that all responsible parties share the burden of compensating a victim. The governor’s proposal would alter this, potentially allowing negligent parties to avoid full financial responsibility if one driver lacks sufficient insurance coverage.

Expert Insight:

Expert Insight: Gutting joint and several liability represents a significant shift in risk allocation, potentially leaving victims to bear the costs of harm caused by multiple negligent actors. This could disincentivize comprehensive safety measures and accountability.

Under the proposed changes, if a driver is insufficiently insured, other negligent parties would not be obligated to cover the remaining damages, leaving the victim to absorb the financial loss.

‘Modified Contributory Negligence’

New York currently operates under a comparative negligence standard, where fault is apportioned between parties, and compensation is adjusted accordingly. The governor’s proposal introduces a “modified contributory negligence” rule, stating that if a claimant is found just 51 percent at fault, they receive no compensation – a change from the current 49 percent threshold.

This shift could disproportionately impact cyclists and pedestrians, who are often blamed for crashes even when drivers are at fault. A driver found 49 percent responsible could avoid any financial liability under the new rule.

Damage Caps

The proposal also includes caps on non-economic damages – such as pain and suffering – at $100,000 for certain groups, including uninsured drivers. This would limit the compensation available to individuals based on their status, rather than the severity of their injuries. A jury’s assessment of the full impact of an injury would be preempted by these statutory limits.

Proponents of the changes claim they will not increase safety or lower insurance rates, citing examples from other states where similar measures have not yielded those results. Opponents argue the changes will remove accountability, discourage safety, and increase reliance on public assistance.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is ‘no-fault’ insurance?

New York’s no-fault insurance system is designed to provide immediate medical care and compensation for lost wages to anyone involved in an auto crash, regardless of who was at fault. Benefits typically max out at $50,000.

What is ‘joint and several liability’?

Joint and several liability means that when multiple parties contribute to a crash, each party is responsible for the full extent of the damages, even if their individual contribution was smaller. The victim can pursue full compensation from any one of the responsible parties.

How would the proposed changes affect comparative negligence?

Currently, under comparative negligence, a claimant can recover damages even if they were partially at fault, with their compensation reduced by their percentage of fault. The proposed “modified contributory negligence” rule would bar recovery if the claimant is found 51 percent or more at fault.

As New York considers its commitment to pedestrian and cyclist safety initiatives, will these proposed changes ultimately prioritize financial considerations over the well-being of its citizens?