Summary
This Appellate Division, Second Department decision reviews the Supreme Court's denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and dismissal of defendants' affirmative defenses alleging comparative negligence in a rear-end vehicle collision case. The court held that while the plaintiff established a prima facie case of negligence by showing his vehicle was stopped when struck from behind, the defendants successfully raised triable issues of fact regarding potential nonnegligent explanations for the collision and the plaintiff's comparative fault. Consequently, the lower court's order denying summary judgment was affirmed with costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court erred in denying summary judgment on the issue of liability and in dismissing the defendants' affirmative defenses alleging comparative negligence and culpable conduct.
Holdings
- The appellate division affirmed the order, finding that the plaintiff had not established a summary‑judgment entitlement on liability and that the defendants raised triable issues of fact regarding negligence and comparative fault.
Key quotations
“A plaintiff in a negligence action moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability must establish, prima facie, that the defendant breached a duty owed to the plaintiff and that the defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the alleged injuries. A plaintiff is not required to show freedom from comparative fault in establishing his or her prima facie case.”
Factual background
John Fumo was driving a stopped vehicle when it was rear‑ended by a tractor operated by Alexander Ortiz and owned by QPR Trucking, LLC, resulting in personal injuries.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, Richmond County denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and dismissed the defendants' affirmative defenses. The plaintiff appealed the order.