Summary
This appellate decision reviews the Supreme Court's denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability in a personal injury action arising from a rear-end vehicle collision. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's order, holding that conflicting deposition testimony created triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant driver offered a nonnegligent explanation for the accident. Consequently, credibility determinations required resolution by a factfinder rather than on summary judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability.
Holdings
- The order denying summary judgment is affirmed because a rear‑end collision creates a prima facie case of negligence that must be rebutted, and triable issues of fact exist as to whether the defendant driver had a non‑negligent explanation.
Key quotations
“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, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision”
“A nonnegligent explanation may include that a vehicle made a sudden lane change in front of a defendant's vehicle, forcing the defendant to stop suddenly”
Factual background
A vehicle driven by defendant Xiao B. Chen and owned by Vector Port Service, Inc. collided with the rear of the plaintiff's vehicle on the eastbound side of the Verrazzano‑Narrows Bridge, resulting in personal injuries to the plaintiff.
Procedural history
The plaintiff filed a personal injury action and moved for summary judgment on liability. The Supreme Court, Kings County denied the motion. The plaintiff appealed.