You are here: / / PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS...
,

PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate the absence of comparative fault in this rear-end collision case required the denial of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment without reference to defendant’s papers:

 

“To prevail on a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, a plaintiff must establish, prima facie, not only that the opposing party was negligent, but also that the plaintiff was free from comparative fault” … . 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 in order to rebut the inference of negligence … . Here, the plaintiffs’ submissions in support of their motion, which included the defendant’s deposition transcript, failed to eliminate a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had a nonnegligent explanation for the collision. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs’ vehicle came to a stop, started again, and came to a second stop for no apparent reason. The defendant claimed that when he braked to avoid a collision, his vehicle skidded on a roadway which was wet from melting snow … . Moluh v Vord, 2016 NY Slip Op 06477, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/COMPARATIVE FAULT (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (REAR-END COLLISION PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/REAR-END COLLISIONS (PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

 

/by
You might also like
FAMILY COURT PROPERLY TRANSFERRED THIS DERIVATIVE NEGLECT PROCEEDING TO THE UNKECHAUG INDIAN NATION PURSUANT TO THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT (ICWA) (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS THE PRODUCT OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFUSION, SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO “REINSTATE” A PRIOR VERDICT THAT HAD NOT BEEN REPORTED TO THE JUDGE.
“NOTWITHSTANDING” CLAUSE IN THE ADDENDUM TO THE NOTE CONTROLS, THE ADDENDUM REQUIRED THAT THE MONTHLY PAYMENTS ON THE NOTE START BEFORE THE DATE DESCRIBED IN THE NOTE ITSELF (SECOND DEPT).
BY THE TERMS OF THE MANAGING AGENT’S CONTRACT WITH THE COOPERATIVE, THE MANAGING AGENT DID NOT FULLY ASSUME THE DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE COOPERATIVE PREMISES SUCH THAT THE AGENT WOULD BE LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL ON THE PREMISES; THE MANAGING AGENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Deliberately-Caused Collision Was Not An Accident from the Standpoint of the Insurer of the Driver Who Caused the Collision—However the Collision Was an Accident from the Standpoint of the Insurer of the Victim of the Deliberate Act—Therefore the Uninsured Motorist Endorsement In the Victim’s Policy Kicked In
A Request for an Admission Which Goes to the Heart of the Litigation Is Improper—Defendant Should Have Been Allowed to Withdraw Its Admission that Its Employee Was Acting Within the Scope of His Employment When a Vehicle Accident Occurred
Proof of Regular Cleaning Negated Constructive Notice Allegation​
COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), THE COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE, EVEN IF IT DID NOT EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

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

[gravityform id=”1″ title=”false” description=”false” tabindex=”2″]

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CHAIN BETWEEN TWO POLES NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, SCHOOL’S MOTION... DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE...