You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR PLAINTIFF’S...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR PLAINTIFF’S COLLIDING WITH THE REAR OF DEFENDANT’S CAR 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact about a nonnegligent explanation for his colliding with the rear of defendant’s car. Plaintiff was riding a motorcycle when the car in front of him (driven by Daunais) suddenly swerved to the left and plaintiff struck the defendant’s car, which was in front of Daunais. Daunais alleged the defendant suddenly stopped dead in the road and Daunais swerved to the left to avoid colliding with defendant:

It is undisputed that defendant has satisfied his initial summary judgment burden inasmuch as “[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” … . The burden therefore shifted to plaintiff to demonstrate a nonnegligent explanation for the collision … . As relevant here, “[e]vidence that the vehicle which was rear-ended came to a sudden and abrupt stop will defeat summary judgment” … .

Although defendant contends that he was attempting to turn into a driveway when plaintiff rear-ended him and that he had appropriately slowed his vehicle and activated his turn signal prior to turning, Daunais contradicted him, testifying that defendant “stopped dead in the road.” Daunais averred that he then “took a chance” and swerved left into the oncoming traffic lane to avoid colliding with defendant’s vehicle. Plaintiff explained that he was unable to do the same because another motorcyclist was by then blocking him from safely veering to the left. Other motorcyclists traveling with plaintiff also testified that they observed Daunais’ van swerve into the oncoming traffic lane to reveal defendant’s vehicle stopped in the road. This proof, when viewed “in the light most favorable to plaintiff and affording him the benefit of every favorable inference”… , demonstrates a triable issue of fact as to whether a nonnegligent explanation exists for the rear-end collision … . Bell v Brown, 2017 NY Slip Op 05898, 3rd Dept 7-27-17

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, REAR-END COLLISION, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR PLAINTIFF’S COLLIDING WITH THE REAR OF DEFENDANT’S CAR 3RD DEPT)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (REAR-END COLLISION, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR PLAINTIFF’S COLLIDING WITH THE REAR OF DEFENDANT’S CAR 3RD DEPT)/REAR-END COLLISION (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR PLAINTIFF’S COLLIDING WITH THE REAR OF DEFENDANT’S CAR 3RD DEPT)

You might also like
Proof of Inability to Control Sexual Behavior (Over and Above Proof of Antisocial Personality Disorder [ASPD]), Deemed Sufficient to Justify Confinement as a Dangerous Sex Offender
SUPERMARKET EMPLOYEES HAD NO LEGAL DUTY TO AID AN UNCONSCIOUS PERSON IN A CAR IN THE SUPERMARKET PARKING LOT.
CHILD’S NAME CHANGE TO THE HYPHENATED SURNAMES OF BOTH PARENTS, WHO ARE NOT MARRIED, AFFIRMED (THIRD DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH THE INJURED EMPLOYEE WORKED ONLY SPORADICALLY AND AS NEEDED AND WORKED ONLY 16 DAYS IN THE RELEVANT 52 WEEK PERIOD, HIS BENEFITS MUST STILL BE CALCULATED BY MULTIPLYING HIS DAILY WAGE BY 200 (THIRD DEPT).
THE MODIFICATION OF THE GUARDIANSHIP ORDER MUST BE IN THE BESTS INTEREST OF THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED PERSON; HERE THE APPOINTMENT OF STEPFATHER AS LIMITED COGUARDIAN CONSTITUTED A CHANGE THAT WAS NOT IN THE DISABLED PERSON’S BEST INTERESTS BECAUSE CONSISTENCY IN ROUTINE AND REGIMEN WAS PARAMOUNT (THIRD DEPT).
THE BOARD’S RULING THAT CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DELIVERY SERVICE WAS UPHELD; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE FACTS WERE MOST SIMILAR TO ANOTHER DECISION INVOLVING THE SAME EMPLOYER WHERE THE COURT FOUND NO EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP (THIRD DEPT).
IF PLAINTIFF, A FOREMAN, HAD THE AUTHORITY TO STOP WORK BECAUSE OF RAIN, THEN HIS CONTINUING TO WORK MAY HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; IF PLAINTIFF HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED TO WORK IN THE RAIN, THEN THE WET PLYWOOD MAY HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICTING OR ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE ON THESE ISSUES, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO MANSLAUGHTER AND ATTEMPTED ASSAULT PURSUANT TO A PLEA AGREEMENT WITH A NEGOTIATED SENTENCE, THE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE ILLEGAL; THERE WAS NO PROOF IN THE PLEA ALLOCUTION THAT THE DEFENDANT FIRED MORE THAN ONE BULLET (THERE WAS A SECOND SHOOTER) (THIRD 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

THE PROOF OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR LOST EARNINGS WAS INSUFFICIENT AS A... RECORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PETITIONER KNOWINGLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT...