You are here: / / REAR DRIVER MUST TAKE WEATHER CONDITIONS INTO ACCOUNT WHEN FOLLOWING ANOTHER...

REAR DRIVER MUST TAKE WEATHER CONDITIONS INTO ACCOUNT WHEN FOLLOWING ANOTHER CAR, PLANTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE.

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case was properly granted. The driver of the rear vehicle must take weather conditions into account when following another car. The emergency doctrine is not available because the driver was aware of the weather conditions. An allegation that the plaintiff’s car stopped suddenly is not enough to rebut the presumption of negligence:

A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the driver of the rear vehicle, and imposes a duty on the part of the operator of the moving vehicle to come forward with an adequate, nonnegligent explanation for the accident … . Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to partial summary judgment on the issue of liability by establishing that defendant Angel Sanchez, the driver of defendant Basics Development Group’s vehicle, was negligent.

Although plaintiff came to a sudden stop and defendants contend that icy road conditions that day provide a valid, non-negligent explanation for why the accident occurred (i.e., that Sanchez’s car skidded), a driver is expected to maintain enough distance between himself and cars ahead of him so as to avoid collisions with stopped vehicles, taking into account weather and road conditions … . Furthermore, defendants’ reliance on the emergency doctrine is misplaced, since that defense is unavailable where, as here, defendant driver was aware of inclement weather conditions and should have properly accounted for them … .

Defendants’ alternative argument, that plaintiff stopped suddenly, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of Sanchez’s negligence … . Matos v Sanchez, 2017 NY Slip Op 01306, 1st Dept 2-21-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (REAR DRIVER MUST TAKE WEATHER CONDITIONS INTO ACCOUNT WHEN FOLLOWING ANOTHER CAR, PLANTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (REAR-END COLLISIONS, REAR DRIVER MUST TAKE WEATHER CONDITIONS INTO ACCOUNT WHEN FOLLOWING ANOTHER CAR, PLANTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE)/REAR-END COLLISIONS (REAR DRIVER MUST TAKE WEATHER CONDITIONS INTO ACCOUNT WHEN FOLLOWING ANOTHER CAR, PLANTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE)

You might also like
NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WHEN IT DENIED PETITIONER SUCCESSION RIGHTS TO HIS MOTHER’S APARTMENT.
PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE, EVEN IF PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN WHERE HE WAS AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY DETERMINATION IN THIS EXECUTIVE LAW 63 SPECIAL PROCEEDING SOUNDING IN FRAUD STEMMING FROM UNCONSCIONABLE EQUIPMENT FINANCE LEASES AND OPPRESSIVE DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES; RESPONDENTS’ REQUEST FOR FURTHER DISCOVERY, WHICH IS DISFAVORED IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS, WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
STATE’S EXPERT DID NOT ESTABLISH RESPONDENT SEX OFFENDER SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO CIVIL COMMITMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED. ​
THE INSURED MISREPRESENTED HER HOME ADDRESS AND THE INSURERS DISCLAIMED COVERAGE; THE CONCLUSORY AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE INSURERS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (UNDERWRITING MANUALS, RULES, BULLETINS) AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE MISREPRESENTATION WAS MATERIAL (FIRST DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED ON MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING, FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY RELIED SOLELY UPON AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH THE CHILD AND UNSWORN DOCUMENTS FROM MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND THERAPISTS (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS “RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES” AND “COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATION” ACTION, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS’ FRAUD, AS OPPOSED TO THE 2008-2009 FINANCIAL CRISIS, CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S LOSS, AND WHETHER AN OMISSION ON DEFENDANTS’ PART WAS AN ACTIONABLE MISREPRESENTATION; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BUS PASSENGER WAS INJURED WHEN THE BUS DRIVER TOOK ACTION IN AN EMERGENCY; DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (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

WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROPER REMEDY FOR TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY... PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS RAISED ISSUES OF FACT REQUIRING DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’...