Brindisi v. ARJ Transp., Inc.

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed an order denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability in a rear-end collision personal-injury action. The court held that the defendants' assertion that the plaintiff stopped suddenly, without more, did not provide a nonnegligent explanation sufficient to defeat summary judgment, while any comparative negligence would remain for trial.

Holdings

1. A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence by the rear vehicle's operator, requiring that operator to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the collision.
2. A plaintiff is not required to demonstrate freedom from comparative fault to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on liability.
3. An assertion that the lead vehicle stopped suddenly, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the inference of negligence arising from a rear-end collision.
4. Any comparative negligence by Brindisi remains to be determined at trial and may offset the amount of damages, but it does not defeat summary judgment on defendants' liability.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Brindisi established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on liability based on evidence that defendants' vehicle struck his stopped vehicle from behind.
2. Whether defendants raised a triable issue of fact on liability by asserting that Brindisi stopped suddenly.
3. Whether any comparative negligence by Brindisi remained for trial despite summary judgment on liability.

Disposition

reversed