You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMERGENCY DEFENSE APPLIED TO A REAR-END COLLI...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMERGENCY DEFENSE APPLIED TO A REAR-END COLLISION.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined defendant had raised a question of fact whether the emergency defense applied in a rear-end collision. The defendant, in an affidavit in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, alleged an unidentified car suddenly turned into his path causing him to swerve and ultimately strike the back of plaintiff’s car. The dissent argued the accident could only have occurred because of defendant’s negligence:

We find that plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing a prima facie showing of their entitlement to partial summary judgment on liability. A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie showing of negligence on the part of the rear driver … . Similarly, a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129(a), which obligates drivers to maintain safe distances between their cars and cars in front of them, and be aware of traffic conditions, including vehicle stoppages, is prima facie evidence of negligence … .

Defendants opposed, arguing that summary judgment was not warranted, because they had a valid emergency doctrine defense, which would preclude a summary finding of liability against them. The emergency doctrine recognizes that “when an actor is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or causes the actor to be reasonably so disturbed that the actor must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the actor may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context,” provided the actor had not created the emergency … . Maisonet v Roman, 2016 NY Slip Op 02725, 1st Dept 4-7-16

 

You might also like
Infant’s Injury Not Apparent for Several Months—Application to File Late Notice of Claim Properly Granted
STOP AND ARREST OF PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO NYC’S STOP AND FRISK POLICY STATED VALID CAUSES OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 42 USC 1983 AGAINST THE POLICE OFFICERS AND THE CITY (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT STOPPED SUDDENLY ON A HIGHWAY BECAUSE THE TOP OF HIS TRUCK STRUCK AN OVERHEAD BRIDGE.
IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION WHERE A ROUTER SEVERED PLAINTIFF’S THUMB, THE FAILURE-TO-WARN CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON THE MANUAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE PLANTIFF NEVER READ IT; THE GENERALIZED FAILURE-TO-WARN CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DISAGREEING WITH THE SECOND DEPARTMENT, THE DESIGN-DEFECT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON THE LACK OF AN INTERLOCK DEVICE PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
A CLAIM WHICH ARISES AFTER THE FILING OF A BANKRUPTCY PETITION BELONGS TO THE DEBTOR, NOT TO THE BANKRUPCTY ESTATE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT HOME CARE AGENCY WAS HIRED BY DEFENDANT HEALTHCARE PLAN AS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE; THEREFORE THE HEALTHCARE PLAN WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED ASSAULT, BATTERY AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION COMMITED BY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE HOME CARE AGENCY (FIRST DEPT). ​
Testimony that Bus Company Held to Higher Standard Required Reversal
RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE APPLIES IN THIS ELEVATOR-DOOR INJURY CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST 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

MORTGAGE HAD PRIORITY OVER COUNTY’S CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAID... MOVING PARTY CANNOT RELY ON GAPS IN OPPOSING PARTY’S PROOF IN MOTIONS...