DOCSLIB.ORG

Contributory and Comparative Negligence in Puerto Rico

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

University of Miami Law Review Volume 11 Number 4 Miami Law Quarterly Article 9 7-1-1957 Contributory and Comparative Negligence in Puerto Rico Donald A. Wiesner Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr Recommended Citation Donald A. Wiesner, Contributory and Comparative Negligence in Puerto Rico, 11 U. Miami L. Rev. 502 (1957) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol11/iss4/9 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENT CONTRIBUTORY AND COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN PUERTO RICO DONALD A. WIESNER* 1. INTRODUCTION When a system of law is exposed to strong influences coming from other legal systems, confusion and divergence of judicial thinking will inevitably follow. Recent developments in Latin America are illustrative. Due to close proximity with that area, the problem is of special interest to students of comparative law. Cases decided by Latin American courts have furnished a wealth of material from which the interplay between different legal systems may be examined. A recent Puerto Rican decision,' which this paper will highlight, illustrates the peculiar status of its private law and evinces the pressures exerted upon its civil law system by the common law. Spanish for nearly four centuries, Puerto Rico was imbued with a strong propensity for civil law traditions. Nevertheless, the events of the past fifty years, bringing common law ideas into the island, have occasioned a profound change in its legal system. Strangly, Spanish history left little legal background. Private law found expression only in the tey de Indias,3 complying with the military interests which governed the island for several centuries. American occupation, following the Spanish withdrawal, found courts to be almost non-existent, the island run like a corporate entity and a society that had experienced a civil government only in the last few months 4 of Spanish rule. Soon after the American occupation, Puerto Rico adopted the Spanish Civil Code5 and also enacted legislation patterned after statutes in force in the several states of the United States.' The effect of the enactment of the Spanish Code and the formal espousal of the techniques of the civil * Instructor, Business Law, University of Miami. 1. Irizarry v. The People of Puerto Rico, 75 P.R. 740 (1953). 2. WELLS CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS IN PUERTO Rico. DEVELOPMENTS TOWARD SELF dOVERNMENT IN TIlE CARIBBEAN (1955). 3. Spanish colonies were ruled by a series of special statutes. Later they were codified and called the Recompliacion de la Ley de Indias. 4. McIntosh, Constitutional Government in Puerto Rico, 24 REv. Jut. U.P.R. 197, 199 (1954-55). 5. "The Legal Systems of Louisiana and Puerto Rico have certain similar attributes. Both carried forward into America dominion a civil law tradition of European origin. In both places civil law came out the victor in the clash with the common law , . " Dainow, The Method of Legal Development Through Judicial interpretation in Louisiana and Puerto Rico, 22 REv. JU. U.P.R. 108, (1952-3). 6. SADY, "'[E UNITED STATES AND DEPENDENT PEOPLES. (1956); PERXINS, TIIE UNITED STATES AND TE CARIBBEAN. (1947); While the island enjoys a considerable measure of political independence the economy is integrated with that of the United States to a great extent. PRoUm'ooT, BRITAIN AND TIlE UNITED STATES IN THE CARIBBEAN (1953). COMMENT 503 law system led one writer to state that their adoption would ". undoubt- edly carry Puerto Rican courts back into the more or less remote history of Spanish law ....- 7 A half century has passed since these words were expressed. The instant case will indicate that the prediction was not realized. tl. THE CASE IN QUESTION In Irizarry v. The People of Puerto Rico,' the several opinions present material that persuasively illustrates the conflicting operations of civil and common law technique within a single judisdiction. The facts of the case are simple. A boy of eight years found a cartridge containing explosives apparently abandoned by a state highway crew. Hc carried it home, put the cartridge oi a stone and struck it with a machete causing au explosion from which lie suffered the loss of his left eye, possible future damage to the other eye and other injuries. He sued and recovered damages in the amount of $3,000. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, the minor alleging the amount of damages was inad- equate and the defendant claiming that the facts proved the minor con- tributorily negligent, barring his claim. The per curiam opinion, citing four Puerto Rican cases and the Amer- ican Law Reports, held that the acts of the minor did not constitute con- tributory negligence. Further, taking cognizance of the minor's plea, the award of damages was increased to $15,000. In his concurring opinion Justice Ortiz joined the per curiam decision as to the result, but disagreed as to the grounds by which the court reached its decision. Ieargued that even though the minor was somewhat negligent, such finding should not bar his recovery since the doctrine of contributory negligence was not the law in Puerto Rico. In the other concurring opinions, one Justice was convinced that the minor was not negligent; the other, even though in sympathy with the views of Justice Ortiz on the adoption of the comparative negligence doctrine, held that the court lacked authority to change the law. It is in the differences in these four opinions that one is able to observe the variation in techniques. The acceptance of the contributory negligence doctrine, or its rejection, is merely the battleground;" the issues are broader and rather appear to be the predominance of one or the other legal system. III. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IN PUERTO Rico The contributory negligence doctrine appears to be the present rule in Puerto Rico, but in what manner has it attached itself to the system? Does it belong there? 7. Drake, The Old Roman Law and a Modern American Code, 3 MICH. L. REv. 108, 112, (1904-5). 8. 75 P.R. 740, (1953). 9. Justice Oritz in Alverez v. Hernandez, 74 P.R. 460 (1953) on facts nat dissimilar to the instant case failed to raise his objections to the issue of contributory negligence. MIAMI LAW QUARTERLY Justice Ortiz in the instant case cites the origin of the doctrine in Claudio v. Cortinez,1' decided in 1905, where a local court spoke of con- tributory negligence for the first time. Significantly, that decision relied on a special act" governing the master-servant relationship, and the court neither discussed, relied or even commented on any provision of the general, i.e. civil, code! On the facts, the decision in the Claudio case was harsh one. A baker who had lost his arm in a kneading machine was denied recovery because he knew of the dangers of the machine and failed to bring his conduct within the limited applicability of the special statute governing liability of employers. In denying recovery the court cited American cases which sup- ported the application of the contributory negligence doctrine in similar instances. However, no mention was made of the civil code and its general provision governing negligence actions. The special employer statute was held inapplicable in a decision' 2 four years later where the relation of master and servant did not exist between the parties. Nevertheless, the deadly touch of the common law, once recog- nized in the prior case, spread at once into the general area of torts, invading the civil law wheee today the code has been construed to embody the doc- trine. The doctrine needed but the Claudio case and its subsequent citation in Natal v. Bartolomy,'3 three years later, to establish itself as the proper inter- pretation of Article 1802 of the code; in the Natal decision it was firmly cemented by the terse statement of Justice Figueras that: "And with regard to contributory negligence, see the case of Herienegildo Claudio vs. Jose Cortinez . ..." • Subsequently the doctrine was not questioned as the cases demonstrate. The only concern was with the collateral problems of whether certain acts on the part of the plaintiff constituted negligence." In 1931 the court in Mirando v. Port6 Rico Lt. & P. Co." reaffirmed the doctrine when it said that, "The doctrine of contributory negligence has been adopted in this jurisdiction together with and subject to limitations ...."16 It would appear that the doctrine has served Puerto Rico for the past fifty years in much the same fashion as it has operated in the United States. 10. 9 P.R. 97 (1905). 11. REv. STAT. PUFRTro Rico §§ 332-333 pp. 150-156, March I, 1902. 12. Vargas v. A. Monrog 6 ilijos, 15 P.R. 26 (1909). 13. 14 P.R. 474 (1908). 14. Acosta v. Crespo, 70 P.R. 223 (1949); Tavarez v. San Juan Lodge, 68 P.R. 681 (1948); Castro v. Gonzalez, 58 P.R. 369 (1941); Rivera v. Central Pasto Viejo, Inc., 44 P.R. 236 (1932); Portalatin v. Noriega, 33 P.R. 755 (1924); Rubio v. Garage Mayagilez Inc., 23 P.R. 565 (1916); Rosado v. Ponce Railway & Light Co. 18 P.R. 593 (1912). 15. 42 P.R. 694 (1931). 16. Id.at 710. The limitations referred to by the court are the lastclear chance doctrine and similar mitigating concepts that are recognized in common law jurisdictions. The court included in those the adoption of the constructive knowledge feature of the last clear chance doctrine.
Recommended publications
  • District of Columbia Statehood and Voting Representation

    District of Columbia Statehood and Voting Representation

    Updated June 29, 2020 District of Columbia Statehood and Voting Representation On June 26, 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives have included full statehood or more limited methods of considered and passed the Washington, D.C. Admission providing DC residents the ability to vote in congressional Act, H.R. 51. This marked the first time in 27 years a elections. Some Members of Congress have opposed these District of Columbia (DC) statehood bill was considered on legislative efforts and recommended maintaining the status the floor of the House of Representatives, and the first time quo. Past legislative proposals have generally aligned with in the history of Congress a DC statehood bill was passed one of the following five options: by either the House or the Senate. 1. a constitutional amendment to give DC residents voting representation in This In Focus discusses the political status of DC, identifies Congress; concerns regarding DC representation, describes selected issues in the statehood process, and outlines some recent 2. retrocession of the District of Columbia DC statehood or voting representation bills. It does not to Maryland; provide legal or constitutional analysis on DC statehood or 3. semi-retrocession (i.e., allowing qualified voting representation. It does not address territorial DC residents to vote in Maryland in statehood issues. For information and analysis on these and federal elections for the Maryland other issues, please refer to the CRS products listed in the congressional delegation to the House and final section. Senate); 4. statehood for the District of Columbia; District of Columbia and When ratified in 1788, the U.S.
  • Environmental Assessment for the Replacement of the Pier and Boat Ramp at the U.S

    Environmental Assessment for the Replacement of the Pier and Boat Ramp at the U.S

    Draft Environmental Assessment for the Repairs and Replacement of the Boat Ramp and Pier at the US Border Patrol Air and Marine Facility, Ponce, Puerto Rico Environmental Assessment for the Replacement of the Pier and Boat Ramp at the U.S. Border Patrol & Air and Marine Facility, Ponce, Puerto Rico U.S. Customs and Border Protection February 2019 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Repairs and Replacement of the Boat Ramp and Pier at the US Border Patrol Air and Marine Facility, Ponce, Puerto Rico Environmental Assessment for the Replacement of the Pier and Boat Ramp at the U.S. Border Patrol & Air and Marine Facility, Ponce, Puerto Rico Environmental Assessment for the Replacement of the Pier and Boat Ramp at the U.S. Border Patrol & Air and Marine Facility, Ponce, Puerto Rico Lead Agency: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Proposed Action: The demolition and removal of the temporary structure, removal of the original pier, construction of a new pier, and replacement of the boat ramp at 41 Bonaire Street in the municipality of Ponce, Puerto Rico. The replacement boat ramp would be constructed in the same location as the existing boat ramp, and the pier would be constructed south of the Ponce Marine Unit facility. For Further Information: Joseph Zidron Real Estate and Environmental Branch Chief Border Patrol & Air and Marine Program Management Office 24000 Avila Road, Suite 5020 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 [email protected] Date: February 2019 Abstract: CBP proposes to remove the original concrete pier, demolish and remove the temporary structure, construct a new pier, replace the existing boat ramp, and continue operation and maintenance at its Ponce Marine Unit facility at 41 Bonaire Street, Ponce, Puerto Rico.
  • Ruling America's Colonies: the Insular Cases Juan R

    Ruling America's Colonies: the Insular Cases Juan R

    YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW Ruling America's Colonies: The Insular Cases Juan R. Torruella* INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 58 I. THE HISTORICAL BACKDROP TO THE INSULAR CASES..................................-59 11. THE INSULAR CASES ARE DECIDED ......................................... 65 III. LIFE AFTER THE INSULAR CASES.......................... .................. 74 A. Colonialism 1o ......................................................... 74 B. The Grinding Stone Keeps Grinding........... ....... ......................... 74 C. The Jones Act of 1917, U.S. Citizenship, and President Taft ................. 75 D. The Jones Act of 1917, U.S. Citizenship, and ChiefJustice Taft ............ 77 E. Local Self-Government v. Colonial Status...........................79 IV. WHY THE UNITED STATES-PUERTO Rico RELATIONSHIP IS COLONIAL...... 81 A. The PoliticalManifestations of Puerto Rico's Colonial Relationship.......82 B. The Economic Manifestationsof Puerto Rico's ColonialRelationship.....82 C. The Cultural Manifestationsof Puerto Rico's Colonial Relationship.......89 V. THE COLONIAL STATUS OF PUERTO Rico Is UNAUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND CONTRAVENES THE LAW OF THE LAND AS MANIFESTED IN BINDING TREATIES ENTERED INTO BY THE UNITED STATES ............................................................. 92 CONCLUSION .................................................................... 94 * Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The substance of this Article was presented in
  • Testimony Medicaid and CHIP in the U.S. Territories

    Testimony Medicaid and CHIP in the U.S. Territories

    Statement of Anne L. Schwartz, PhD Executive Director Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission Before the Health Subcommittee Committee on Energy and Commerce U.S. House of Representatives March 17, 2021 i Summary Medicaid and CHIP play a vital role in providing access to health services for low-income individuals in the five U.S. territories: American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The territories face similar issues to those in the states: populations with significant health care needs, an insufficient number of providers, and constraints on local resources. With some exceptions, they operate under similar federal rules and are subject to oversight by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. However, the financing structure for Medicaid in the territories differs from state programs in two key respects. First, territorial Medicaid programs are constrained by an annual ceiling on federal financial participation, referred to as the Section 1108 cap or allotment (§1108(g) of the Social Security Act). Territories receive a set amount of federal funding each year regardless of changes in enrollment and use of services. In comparison, states receive federal matching funds for each state dollar spent with no cap. Second, the federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) is statutorily set at 55 percent rather than being based on per capita income. If it were set using the state formula, the matching rate for all five territories would be significantly higher, and for most, would likely be the maximum of 83 percent. These two policies have resulted in chronic underfunding of Medicaid in the territories, requiring Congress to step in at multiple points to provide additional resources.
  • Excavations at Maruca, a Preceramic Site in Southern Puerto Rico

    Excavations at Maruca, a Preceramic Site in Southern Puerto Rico

    EXCAVATIONS AT MARUCA, A PRECERAMIC SITE IN SOUTHERN PUERTO RICO Miguel Rodríguez ABSTRACT A recent set of radiocarbon dated shows that the Maruca site, a preceramic site located in the southern coastal plains of Puerto Rico, was inhabited between 5,000 and 3,000 B.P. bearing the earliest dates for human habitation in Puerto Rico. Also the discovery in the site of possible postmolds, lithic and shell workshop areas and at least eleven human burials strongly indicate the possibility of a permanent habitation site. RESUME Recientes fechados indican una antigüedad entre 5,000 a 3000 años antes de del presente para Maruca, una comunidad Arcaica en la costa sur de Puerto Rico. Estos son al momento los fechados más antiguos para la vida humana en Puerto Rico. El descubrimiento de socos, de posible talleres líticos, de áreas procesamiento de moluscos y por lo menos once (11) enterramientos humanos sugieren la posibilidad de que Maruca sea un lugar habitation con cierta permanence. KEY WORDS: Human Remains, Marjuca Site, Preceramic Workshop. INTRODUCTION During the 1980s archaeological research in Puerto Rico focused on long term multidisciplinary projects in early ceramic sites such as Sorcé/La Hueca, Maisabel and Punta Candelera. This research significantly expanded our knowledge of the life ways and adaptive strategies of Cedrosan and Huecan Saladoid cultures. Although the interest in these early ceramic cultures has not declined, it seems that during the 1990s, archaeological research began to develop other areas of interest. With the discovery of new preceramic sites of the Archaic age found during construction projects, the attention of specialists has again been focused on the first in habitants of Puerto Rico.
  • Puerto Rico, Colonialism In

    Puerto Rico, Colonialism In

    University at Albany, State University of New York Scholars Archive Latin American, Caribbean, and U.S. Latino Latin American, Caribbean, and U.S. Latino Studies Faculty Scholarship Studies 2005 Puerto Rico, Colonialism In Pedro Caban University at Albany, State Univeristy of New York, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.library.albany.edu/lacs_fac_scholar Part of the Latin American Studies Commons Recommended Citation Caban, Pedro, "Puerto Rico, Colonialism In" (2005). Latin American, Caribbean, and U.S. Latino Studies Faculty Scholarship. 19. https://scholarsarchive.library.albany.edu/lacs_fac_scholar/19 This Encyclopedia Entry is brought to you for free and open access by the Latin American, Caribbean, and U.S. Latino Studies at Scholars Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Latin American, Caribbean, and U.S. Latino Studies Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholars Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 516 PUERTO RICO, COLONIALISM IN PUERTO RICO, COLONIALISM IN. Puerto Rico They automatically became subjects of the United States has been a colonial possession of the United States since without any constitutionally protected rights. Despite the 1898. What makes Puerto Rico a colony? The simple an­ humiliation of being denied any involvement in fateful swer is that its people lack sovereignty and are denied the decisions in Paris, most Puerto Ricans welcomed U.S. fundamental right to freely govern themselves. The U.S. sovereignty, believing that under the presumed enlight­ Congress exercises unrestricted and unilateral powers over ened tutelage of the United States their long history of Puerto Rico, although the residents of Puerto Rico do not colonial rule would soon come to an end.
  • Hunger and Poverty in Puerto Rico

    Hunger and Poverty in Puerto Rico

    FACT SHEET MARCH 2019 Hunger and Poverty in Puerto Rico What’s the Problem? Even before Hurricanes Irma and Maria struck Puerto Rico in 2017, hunger and food insecurity were much more common among Puerto Ricans than among their fellow U.S. citizens in the 50 states. Before the hurricanes, 1.5 million Puerto Ricans were food insecure. The child food insecurity rate was 56 percent—nearly triple the average for the rest of the United States.1 Hurricane Maria was a Category 4 hurricane that caused extensive destruction. As of October 10, 2017, the Federal Emergency Management Agency estimated that only 15 per- cent of the island’s electricity had been restored2—leaving 85 percent of the island without electricity. The island was finally able to restore power for every resident in August 2018.3 For one year, families had limited opportunities of earning money for their basic needs such as food, water, and shelter—let alone the additional resources needed to rebuild their homes, farms, and businesses. This contributed to the majority of the island experiencing food insecurity right after the hurricanes. Unfortunately, the island still faces ongoing challenges to help residents overcome hunger. Recovery has been slow, in part, because assistance from FEMA to repair bridges and roads, clean debris, and rebuild homes has been difficult for some parts of the island, and for every resident, to access. Various iStock photo 5 PUERTO RICANS ARE FAR MORE LIKELY TO BE FOOD INSECURE barriers contribute to this, including residents not having U.S. Puerto Rico Rate Puerto Rico Rate the records or deeds for their homes.4 Rate (October 2017) (Today) Before the Hurricanes 11.8% 30-60%* N/A The Background After the Hurricanes 11.8% At least 85%** 38.3%*** In 1898, Puerto Rico became a permanent U.S.
  • Res Ipsa Loquitur and Gross Negligence

    Res Ipsa Loquitur and Gross Negligence

    RES IPSA LOQUITUR AND GROSS NEGLIGENCE I N A DICTUM in the recent case of Garland v.Greenspan,' the Supreme Court of Nevada echoed an apparently unanimous rule2 that the doc- trine of res ipsa loquitur will not raise an inference3 of gross negligence. The facts as found by the trial court sitting without a jury showed that one of the plaintiffs4 was injured when the defendants' automobile swerved to the left of the highway and then to the right, overturning on striking the right shoulder. The defendant driver had lost control of her car for "some unexplained reason" after passing another automobile at a speed in excess of sixty-five miles an hour and in returning to the right-hand line while negotiating a turn to the right. Under the Nevada statute,6 a guest passenger can recover in tort from the host driver only where injury was caused by the driver's in- toxication, wilful misconduct, or gross negligence. The Supreme Court of Nevada, affirming the judgment of the trial court, held that gross neg- ligence or wilful misconduct had not been established as a matter of law, '_Nev.-, 323 P.±d 27 (1958). 'See Harlan v. Taylor, z39 Cal. App. 30, 33 P.zd 422 (934); Lincoln v. Quick, 133 Cal. App. 433, 24 P.2d 245 (1933); O'Reilly v. Sattler, x4i Fla. 770, 193 So. 817 (1940); Minkovitz v. Fine, 67 Ga. App. 176, i9 S.E.zd 561 (1942); Rupe v. Smith, x~i Kan. 6o6, 323 P.zd 293 (x957); Winslow v. Tibbetts, 231 Me.
  • Answer, Special Defense, Counterclaim, and Setoff to a Civil Complaint a Guide to Resources in the Law Library

    Answer, Special Defense, Counterclaim, and Setoff to a Civil Complaint a Guide to Resources in the Law Library

    Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries Copyright © 2011-2019, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. All rights reserved. 2019 Edition Answer, Special Defense, Counterclaim, and Setoff to a Civil Complaint A Guide to Resources in the Law Library Table of Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3 Section 1: Admissions and Denials ............................................................................... 4 Figure 1: Admissions and Denials (Form) ................................................................. 12 Section 2: Special Defenses ....................................................................................... 13 Table 1: List of Special Defense Forms in Dupont on Connecticut Civil Practice ............. 26 Table 2: List of Special Defense Forms in Library of Connecticut Collection Law Forms ... 28 Table 3: Pleading Statute of Limitations Defense - Selected Recent Case Law ............... 29 Table 4: Pleading Statute of Limitations Defense - Selected Treatises .......................... 32 Figure 2: Discharge in Bankruptcy (Form) ................................................................ 33 Figure 3: Reply to Special Defenses – General Denial (Form) ..................................... 34 Figure 4: Reply to and Avoidance of Special Defenses (Form) ..................................... 35 Section 3: Counterclaims and Setoffs.......................................................................... 37 Figure 5: Answer
  • The Status of Puerto Rico Revisited: Does the Current U.S.-Puerto Rico Relationship Uphold International Law?

    The Status of Puerto Rico Revisited: Does the Current U.S.-Puerto Rico Relationship Uphold International Law?

    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 17, Issue 4 1993 Article 5 The Status of Puerto Rico Revisited: Does the Current U.S.-Puerto Rico Relationship Uphold International Law? Dorian A. Shaw∗ ∗ Copyright c 1993 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj The Status of Puerto Rico Revisited: Does the Current U.S.-Puerto Rico Relationship Uphold International Law? Dorian A. Shaw Abstract This Note argues that the establishment of the Commonwealth government fails to fulfill the requirements of a free associated territory as detailed in United Nations General Assembly Resolu- tions 742 (“Resolution 742”) and 1541 (“Resolution 1541”) because the Puerto Rico Constitution remains subject to the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Territorial Clause gives the U.S. Congress plenary authority to govern territories of the United States. Part I of this Note introduces the factual and legal background of Puerto Rico’s hybrid legal status. Part II describes the different interpretations regarding the validity of Puerto Rico’s status in international law. Part III argues that the present status of Puerto Rico requires that the U.S. Congress enact legislation that allows a binding plebiscite to define the status of Puerto Rico in a manner consistent with U.N. General Assembly Resolutions 742 and 1541. Finally, this Note concludes that the U.S. Congress should act to prevent the continuation of a system of government where unequal treatment of U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico is allowed under the U.S.
  • Comparative Negligence

    Comparative Negligence

    SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST DEPARTMENT SEPTEMBER 1, 2016 THE COURT ANNOUNCES THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Andrias, Moskowitz, JJ. 16336- Index 109444/11 16337N Carlos Rodriguez, Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent, -against- City of New York, Defendant-Respondent-Appellant. _________________________ Kelner & Kelner, New York (Joshua D. Kelner of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Tahirih M. Sadrieh of counsel), for respondent-appellant. _________________________ Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kathryn E. Freed, J.), entered October 22, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered November 12, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant’s motion to strike the claim for lost earnings or, in the alternative, to compel plaintiff to provide copies of his tax returns and/or authorizations for such returns, affirmed, without costs. In this case, we are revisiting a vexing issue regarding comparative fault: whether a plaintiff seeking summary judgment on the issue of liability must establish, as a matter of law, that he or she is free from comparative fault. This issue has spawned conflicting decisions between the judicial departments, as well as inconsistent decisions by different panels within this Department. The precedents cited by the dissent have, in fact, acknowledged as
  • PUERTO RICO Information on How Statehood Would Potentially Affect Selected Federal Programs and Revenue Sources

    PUERTO RICO Information on How Statehood Would Potentially Affect Selected Federal Programs and Revenue Sources

    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters March 2014 PUERTO RICO Information on How Statehood Would Potentially Affect Selected Federal Programs and Revenue Sources GAO-14-31 March 2014 PUERTO RICO Information on How Statehood Would P otentially Affect S elected Federal Programs and Revenue Highlights of GAO-14-31, a report to Sources congressional requesters Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found Puerto Rico has access to many Of the 29 federal programs GAO reviewed (which accounted for about 86 federal programs, and is subject to percent of federal program spending for states or their residents in fiscal year certain federal tax laws; however, for 2010), statehood would likely affect 11 programs. For 3 other programs, while some programs and for some aspects the programs themselves would likely not change under statehood, eligibility of tax law, Puerto Rico is treated determinations for these programs could be affected indirectly by changes that differently than the states. Options for could occur to benefits in other programs. Statehood would not likely affect the Puerto Rico’s political status include 15 remaining programs. See figure below. statehood. GAO was asked to review potential fiscal implications for federal programs if Puerto Rico were to become a state. This report examines potential changes to selected federal programs and related spending changes, and changes to selected federal revenue sources that would be expected should Puerto Rico become a state. This report also discusses economic and fiscal factors under statehood that could influence changes in spending and revenues. To evaluate potential changes to selected federal programs and revenue sources, GAO reviewed federal laws and regulations and interviewed federal and Puerto Rico agency officials.