NEGLIGENCE PRESUMED WHEN THERE’S A READ-END COLLISION
After Y.G. was rear-ended by another vehicle, operated by A.C., a peronal-injury case was filed in Nassau County Supreme Court. And when Y.G. moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and was awarded relief in her favor, A.C. appealed.
On its review of the case, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reiterated established law that when a vehicle is stopped, a rear-end collision “’ establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision.’” But the mere assertion that the front vehicle came to a “sudden stop,” will usually not be sufficient to rebut the negligence presumption.
Since A.C.’s “sudden stop” explanation failed to raise a “triable issue of fact” in this case, the AD2 left the outcome undisturbed.
That had to be a pain in the rear.
# # #
DECISION