You are here: / / Sudden and Frequent Stops In Traffic Must Be Anticipated by Drivers

Sudden and Frequent Stops In Traffic Must Be Anticipated by Drivers

The Second Department, in finding no question of fact had been raised about the existence of a non-negligent explanation for a rear-end collision, explained the relevant law:

A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the rear vehicle and imposes a duty on that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision … .

“One of several nonnegligent explanations for a rear-end collision [may be] a sudden stop of the lead vehicle” … . However, “vehicle stops which are foreseeable under the prevailing traffic conditions, even if sudden and frequent, must be anticipated by the driver who follows, since he or she is under a duty to maintain a safe distance between his or her car and the car ahead” … . Le Grand v Silberstein, 2014 NY Slip OP 08608, 2nd Dept 12-10-14

 

You might also like
NEGLIGENCE ACTION STEMMING FROM AN ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA FOR A VALID NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE SOLE DEFENSE WITNESS DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOLE IN GOLF COURSE UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE INHERENT RISKS, PERSON WHO AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT A NOTICE WITNESS 2ND DEPT.
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-DEFAULT PROVISION IN THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).
Pleading Requirements for Unjust Enrichment and Fraud Not Met
THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT DID NOT NULLIFY THE COUNTERCLAIMS (SECOND DEPT).
HERE PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY OFFERED A DETAILED, CREDIBLE EXPLANATION OF THE LAW OFFICE FAILURE WHICH RESULTED IN MISSING THE DEADLINE FOR PROVIDING DISCOVERY, AS WELL AS THE DEMONSTRATION OF POTENTIALLY MERITORIOUS CAUSES OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO ENFORCE THE PRECLUSION ORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

There Can Be More than One Proximate Cause of an Accident—Plaintiff, to... Defendant Driver Could Not Avoid Striking Bicyclist Who Did Not Stop at a Stop...