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
JUDGE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SEVER TWO COUNTS IN AN INDICTMENT AND REMOVE THE MATTER, INVOLVING A JUVENILE, TO FAMILY COURT; THE PEOPLE’S ARTICLE 78 SEEKING PROHIBITION DENIED AND DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE “NO ACTION” PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT PRECLUDED PLAINTIFFS FROM BRINGING A JUDICIAL BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION; THE AVAILABLE CONTRACTUAL REMEDIES WERE DEEMED EXCLUSIVE (FIRST DEPT). ​
NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S RULES RE: HYBRID AND WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE TAXICABS AND LIVERY VEHICLES UPHELD.
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WATER ON THE FLOOR RESULTED FROM A RECURRING LEAK WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTICED BY THE NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE ROOF-REPAIR CONTRACTORS HIRED BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE BUT WAS PROPERLY AWARDED TO THE CONTRACTORS (FIRST DEPT).
RESPONDENT STATE COLLEGE WITHHELD EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE IN THIS COLLEGE MISCONDUCT PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTED IN PETITIONER-STUDENT’S EXPULSION; THE EXPULSION PENALTY WAS VACATED AND THE STUDENT WAS REINSTATED IN GOOD STANDING (FIRST DEPT). ​
LABOR LAW 200, 241(6) AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS WORKPLACE SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
THE NYPD’S FAILURE TO TIMELY COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER REQUIRING THE RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO A FOIL REQUEST WARRANTED THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES TO PETITIONER; RESPONDENT NYPD’S ABANDONING AN ISSUE IN A PRIOR APPEAL PRECLUDED APPELLATE REVIEW OF THAT ISSUE IN A SUBSEQUENT APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
THE PROOF THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED TO DEFENDANT WAS INADEQUATE AND THE NOTICE DID NOT INCLUDE A STATEMENT REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304; THEREFORE THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION 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 © 2024 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’...