Senate Bill S482B

                                
 
BILL NUMBER: S482

SPONSOR: HOYLMAN
 
TITLE OF BILL:  An act to amend the civil practice law and rules, in
relation to limited liability of persons jointly liable

 
PURPOSE:

To provide that limited liability for persons held jointly liable shall
not apply to parties held liable for failing to provide security as
required by law, rule, or regulation

 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section one amends section 1602 of the civil practice law and rules by
adding a new subdivision (14) to provide that limitations on liability
will not apply to any person who owns, manages, and/or controls property
or provides security for said property who fails to provide security as
required by law, rule, or regulation.

Section two provides the effective date and that the law shall apply to
              

causes of action commenced or pending on or after such date.

 
JUSTIFICATION:

Where a tenant is raped by an intruder who gained access to the tenant's
building through a defect in the building's security, New York is among
a small number of states that asks a jury to apportion liability between
the rapist and the negligent landlord who failed to keep the building
secure. This leads to an unintended and bizarre result when the victim
attempts to recover damages from the negligent landlord for the personal
injury suffered at the hands of the rapist.

Under current law, if the negligent landlord is found to be 50% or less
liable for the injury, the landlord's liability is limited to his "equi-
table share" based on the "relative culpability" of each person contrib-
uting to the total liability. The only time this limitation, on liabil-
ity of the landlord is not imposed is when the other person contributing
to the liability, i.e. the rapist, cannot be found.

Accordingly, in the case of the raped tenant, a jury will likely find
the rapist to be more than 5015, if not 100%, liable for the victim's
injury, freeing the landlord from liability, even though the landlord
failed to maintain adequate security at the time of the assault.

There is another curious consequence that results from the application
of this limitation on liability. Current law provides that the limita-
tion on liability is not applied where the other person responsible for
the victim's injury cannot be found. So in the case of the raped tenant,
if the rapist cannot be found, the limitation on liability of the land-
lord will not be imposed and the victim may be able to recover fully for
damages against the landlord for his failing to provide reasonable secu-
rity. If, on the other hand, the rapist is found, the victim will likely
recover little, if any, damages from the landlord since the limitation
of liability will be applied based on the landlord's "relative culpabil-
ity." The landlord's relative culpability will likely be deemed to be
small as compared to the rapist's culpability, and almost all of the
liability imposed, on the rapist. One may surmise that the odds of
recovering damages from the rapist are slim.
Current law, then, forces the victim to choose between cooperating with
law enforcement to find her attacker and bring him to justice and not
seeking to identify her assailant so that she can recover damages 100%
from the landlord in her personal injury action. Prior to 2002, New York
courts generally held that the law requiring apportionment of liability
did not apply to personal injury actions involving a negligent actor
(i.e., a landlord) and an intentional wrongdoer (i.e., a criminal who
commits assault). Yet the Court of Appeals in 2002 required allocation
of liability, noting that the legislature would need to modify the law
to clarify its intent regarding apportionment in these types of cases.

This bill will make clear that allocation of liability will not apply to
person who owns, manages, and/or controls property or provides security
for said property for failing to provide security as required by law,
rule, or regulation.

 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

2017-2018: S.0480 (Peralta) - Died in Judiciary
2015-2016: S.1264 (Peralta) - Died in Judiciary
2013-2014: S.0081 (Peralta) - Died in Judiciary
2011-2012: S.0127 (Peralta) - Died in Rules
2010: S.7673 (Peralta) - Died on Third Reading

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None.

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect immediately and shall apply to causes of
action commenced or pending on or after such date.

                                
 
BILL NUMBER: S482A

SPONSOR: HOYLMAN
 
TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend the civil practice law and rules, in relation to limited
liability of persons jointly liable

 
PURPOSE:

To provide that limited liability for persons held jointly liable shall
not apply to parties held liable for failing to provide security as
required by law, rule, or regulation

 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section one amends section 1602 of the civil practice law and rules by
adding a new subdivision (14) to provide that limitations on liability
will not apply to any person who owns, manages, and/or controls property
or provides security for said property who fails to provide security as
required by law, rule, or regulation.
              

Section two provides the effective date and that the law shall apply to
causes of action commenced or pending on or after such date.

 
JUSTIFICATION:

Where a tenant is raped by an intruder who gained access to the tenant's
building through a defect in the building's security, New York is among
a small number of states that asks a jury to apportion liability between
the rapist and the negligent landlord who failed to keep the building
secure. This leads to an unintended and bizarre result when the victim
attempts to recover damages from the negligent landlord for the personal
injury suffered at the hands of the rapist.  Under current law, if the
negligent landlord is found to be 50% or less liable for the injury, the
landlord's liability is limited to his "equitable share" based on the
"relative culpability" of each person contributing to the total liabil-
ity. The only time this limitation, on liability of the landlord is not
imposed is when the other person contributing to the liability, i.e. the
rapist, cannot be found.

Accordingly, in the case of the raped tenant, a jury will likely find
the rapist to be more than 5015, if not 100%, liable for the victim's
injury, freeing the landlord from liability, even though the landlord
failed to maintain adequate security at the time of the assault.

There is another curious consequence that results from the application
of this limitation on liability. Current law provides that the limita-
tion on liability is not applied where the other person responsible for
the victim's injury cannot be found. So in the case of the raped tenant,
if the rapist cannot be found, the limitation on liability of the land-
lord will not be imposed and the victim may be able to recover fully for
damages against the landlord for his failing to provide reasonable secu-
rity. If, on the other hand, the rapist is found, the victim will likely
recover little, if any, damages from the landlord since the limitation
of liability will be applied based on the landlord's "relative culpabil-
ity." The landlord's relative culpability will likely be deemed to be
small as compared to the rapist's culpability, and almost all of the

liability imposed, on the rapist. One may surmise that the odds of
recovering damages from the rapist are slim.

Current law, then, forces the victim to choose between cooperating with
law enforcement to find her attacker and bring him to justice and not
seeking to identify her assailant so that she can recover damages 100%
from the landlord in her personal injury action. Prior to 2002, New York
courts generally held that the law requiring apportionment of liability
did not apply to personal injury actions involving a negligent actor
(i.e., a landlord) and an intentional wrongdoer (i.e., a criminal who
commits assault). Yet the Court of Appeals in 2002 required allocation
of liability, noting that the legislature would need to modify the law
to clarify its intent regarding apportionment in these types of cases.

This bill will make clear that allocation of liability will not apply to
person who owns, manages, and/or controls property or provides security
for said property for failing to provide security as required by law,
rule, or regulation.

 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

2017-2018: S.0480 (Peralta)- Died in Judiciary
2015-2016: S.1264 (Peralta)- Died in Judiciary
2013-2014: S.0081 (Peralta)- Died in Judiciary
2011-2012: S.0127 (Peralta)- Died in Rules
2010: S.7673 (Peralta) - Died on Third Reading

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None.

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect immediately and shall apply to causes of
action commenced or pending on or after such date.