Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order granting the plaintiff summary judgment on liability in a rear-end motor vehicle collision case. The court held that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of negligence and that the defendants failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation or establish that the emergency doctrine applied.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Radosta established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on liability based on evidence that Caronia's vehicle struck the rear of Radosta's stopped vehicle.
- Whether the defendants raised a triable issue of fact through a nonnegligent explanation for the collision.
- Whether the emergency doctrine applied to excuse or negate the rear driver's negligence.
Holdings
- A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence by the operator of the rear vehicle, who must then come forward with a nonnegligent explanation for the collision.
- The defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision; evidence that the lead vehicle stopped suddenly, standing alone, is insufficient.
- The emergency doctrine did not apply to the defendants' alleged rear-end collision because the defendants failed to establish an emergency and typical rear-end collisions generally do not qualify as emergencies.
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, requiring that operator to come forward with evidence of a nonnegligent explanation for the collision to rebut the inference of negligence” (*1)
“The emergency doctrine does not apply to typical accidents involving rear-end collisions because trailing drivers are required to leave a reasonable distance between their vehicles and vehicles ahead” (*1)
Factual background
A vehicle operated by Deborah Radosta was completely stopped when it was struck in the rear by a vehicle operated by Darlene Caronia. Radosta submitted deposition testimony from herself and Caronia establishing the stopped position of Radosta's vehicle and the rear impact. The defendants did not provide evidence raising a triable issue as to a nonnegligent explanation or applicability of the emergency doctrine.
Procedural history
Deborah Radosta commenced an action against Darlene Caronia and Louis Caronia for personal injuries allegedly resulting from a rear-end collision. Radosta moved for summary judgment on liability, and the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted that branch of her motion by order dated November 25, 2024. The defendants appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.