Court Should have considered unopposed affidavit of Plaintiff in Personal Injury Rear End Accident
- Cory Morris
- Mar 12, 2016
- 2 min read
The Plaintiff here submitted, in support of his motion for summary judgment, an affadivt stating he was stopped when his car was hit in the rear. Rear end accidents usually render the party who crashed into the back of the car liable as a matter of law (see below).
New York drivers, if you are in a rear-end collision, you should call the Law Offices of Cory H. Morris - be sure to call the police the minute you are in a car accident and, if injured, seek medical care immediately for any personl injury. In this case, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit, unopposed by the defendant, which should have established liability of the defendant as a matter of law. The Second Department finds that the Supreme Court should have granted the Plaintiff's motion.
"When the driver of an automobile approaches another automobile from the rear, he or she is bound to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed and control over his vehicle, and to exercise reasonable care to avoid colliding with the other vehicle" (Gaeta v Carter, 6 AD3d 576, 576 [2004]; see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]; Brothers v Bartling, 130 AD3d 554, 555 [2015]; Williams v Spencer-Hall, 113 AD3d 759, 759-760 [2014]). A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, requiring that operator to come forward with evidence of a nonnegligent explanation for the collision in order to rebut the inference of negligence (see Whelan v Sutherland, 128 AD3d 1055, 1056 [2015]; Drakh v Levin, 123 AD3d 1084, 1085 [2014]; Gutierrez v Trillium USA, LLC, 111 AD3d 669, 670 [2013]). A nonnegligent explanation may include evidence of a mechanical failure, a sudden, unexplained stop of the vehicle ahead, an unavoidable skidding on wet pavement, or any other reasonable cause (see Etingof v Metropolitan Laundry Mach. Sales, Inc., 134 AD3d 667 [2d Dept 2015]; D'Agostino v YRC, Inc., 120 AD3d 1291, 1292 [2014]; Ramos v TC Paratransit, 96 AD3d 924, 925 [2012]; Fajardo v City of New York, 95 AD3d 820, 821 [2012]).
The case is Binkowitz v Kolb, 2016 NY Slip Op 00462, 135 AD3d 884 (2d Dep't. Jan. 27, 2016) http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_00462.htm
