My daughter was struck by a car when she was crossing a street. She was not crossing at a cross-walk. I sued the driver that struck my daughter. My daughter and I testified at our depositions. The other lawyer asked me if I told my daughter to cross in the middle of the block. The lawyer also asked me if my daughter had seen me cross the street at the middle of the block. What does this have to do with her case?
Comparative Negligence
As explained in a prior post on comparative negligence, the injured reduces their damages awarded by their own fault.
If a driver hits a pedestrian, the pedestrian can recover damages against that driver. But a jury would also determine each party’s percent of responsibility for the accident. So if a jury found the driver was 70% culpable for the accident, a $100 award for damages would be reduced to $70.
Vehicle and Traffic Law
The reason that you were asked questions is because of the vehicle and traffic law. Vehicle & Traffic Law § 1230(a) states a parent “shall not authorize or knowingly permit” such child “to violate any of the provisions of this article.” So the attorney is asking you and your daughter questions to see if there were any facts to support an argument that you either directly (by verbally instructing your daughter) or indirectly (by showing her with your actions) that it was appropriate to violate the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Did you tell you daughter is was ok to cross the street mid-block and not in the cross-walk?
General Obligations Law
Fortunately, the General Obligations protects the damages claim. “In an action brought by an infant to recover damages for personal injury the contributory negligence of the infant’s parent or other custodian shall not be imputed to the infant.” General Obligations Law section 3-111. This means that even if the driver can prove you were culpable by instructing your daughter to cross the street without a cross walk, your negligence cannot diminish any award to your daughter. See Boyd v Trent, 297 AD2d 301, 746 NYS2d 191 (2d Dept 2002) and Pedersen v Balzan, 117 AD2d 933, 499 NYS2d 239 (3d Dept 1986).
By James Santner, Esq.
If you have questions about a similar situation, feel free to contact us. Consultations are free and there is no fee unless we win.