In personal injury cases in Queens, defendants often try to shift the blame back onto the injured person by arguing that the danger was clear, the activity was inherently risky, or the injured person made choices that led to the accident. In New York, the rules on comparative fault mean that these defenses don’t always prevent recovery, but they can reduce damages and make settlement harder.
Property owners may also say that a danger was “open and obvious” to limit the amount they had to pay or the number of warnings they had to give. When these defenses arise, timing and proof are crucial. This is why it’s important to talk to Queens slip and fall lawyers as soon as possible. They can help protect the facts that are important to the case.
How Assumption Of Risk Works In New York Injury Claims
Primary Versus Comparative Assumption Of Risk And When Each Applies
In New York, “assumption of risk” can mean different things in different situations. Most of the time, the primary assumption of risk concerns sports and other fun activities, where people are thought to accept the risks that come with the activity. In those cases, the defendant may be responsible only for risks that are clear, expected, and inherent to the activity itself.
In many non-sports-related injury cases, assumption of risk is typically addressed as a component of comparative fault rather than as a complete defense. This means the claim can still proceed, but the damages may be lower if it can be shown that the injured person was partly to blame. In Queens, when someone gets hurt on stairs, wet floors, or sidewalks, a big question is whether the person who got hurt really knew the risk and could have avoided it, or if negligence made the risk bigger than what someone would normally expect.
How Assumption Of Risk Impacts Liability And Damages In Queens Cases
Even if the claim is still legally valid, defenses based on assumption of risk can change how much the case is worth. CPLR 1411 says that if the person who was hurt did something wrong, like being careless or taking a risk, it usually reduces the amount of damages rather than stopping them completely. In real life, the defense might argue that the person who got hurt should receive less money because of their own decisions.
This is used by insurance companies and defense lawyers to get the person who is suing to agree to lower settlements and higher fault percentages. They might say that the hurt person knew they were taking a risk, didn’t take reasonable care, or did something that makes the story less believable. These arguments become less convincing when there is strong evidence that the defendant caused the problem, failed to fix it, or left the injured person with few options to escape the danger.
Other Common Defense Strategies In Queens Injury Litigation
The “Open And Obvious” Argument In Premises Liability Cases
In slip-and-fall and premises cases, the defendant often argues that the condition was “open and obvious,” meaning a reasonable person would have seen it and avoided it. People often use this argument to get rid of or weaken a failure-to-warn theory and put the blame on the person who was hurt. The defense often says that the person who got hurt should have walked around the danger if they can show the jury that it was easy to see.
One important thing to remember is that just because something is obvious doesn’t mean that all responsibility is gone. Even if the risk was clear, courts can still look into whether the property was kept safe. In Queens, for instance, there might be a wet entryway with no mats when it rains, broken steps in a building, or floors that aren’t level. This is especially true when there isn’t enough light, there are a lot of people walking by, or there aren’t any warning signs that make it seem less likely that someone will be able to avoid danger.
Comparative Negligence, Waivers, And Credibility Attacks
In larger arguments about comparative negligence, people often discuss the assumption of risk. The defendant might argue that what happened was partly the injured person’s fault and that the amount of damages should be reduced accordingly. This can happen when people are hurt at home, at events, while having fun, or in places where people are moving quickly, and things are changing.
Defendants can also use waivers or releases, especially in gyms, recreational facilities, and organized events. However, whether they are valid in court depends on the language and the facts. Another common way to question someone’s credibility is to point out statements that don’t match, gaps in treatment, or claims that injuries aren’t related or are exaggerated. The claim is stronger when the incident is reported right away, the medical records are consistent, there are photos or videos when possible, there are witness statements, and the timeline matches the records.
Conclusion
Assumption of risk and other defenses can change the outcome of a Queens injury case by shifting blame, lowering damages, or making it harder to prove negligence. In many everyday claims, New York law sees assumption of risk as a part of comparative fault. This means that you may still be able to get better even if you get less money. It’s important to write things down early and keep a clear record of the conditions because defense arguments often focus on what the injured person should have seen or done to avoid them.
Boland Injury Lawyers, P.C., can look at possible defenses and help you keep your claim strong. Early legal review can also help protect evidence, identify the right people to blame, and reduce the risk of mistakes along the way. You will be better able to respond to the defense’s arguments and get a fair amount of money if you act quickly.