You are here: / / REAR-MOST DRIVER IN A CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS...

REAR-MOST DRIVER IN A CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS IN THE LINE OF STOPPED CARS, REAR-MOST DRIVER NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT INJURY WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER DRIVER AFTER GETTING OUT OF HIS CAR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in his action against the rear-most driver (Lipome) which struck a stopped car (Foley’s car) causing chain-reaction collisions. Plaintiff was subsequently struck by another car (driven by Hourt) after he got out of his car to check on the other drivers. The rear-most driver who caused the chain-reaction accident (Lipome) was not liable for the subsequent accident (when plaintiff was on foot and struck by Hourt):

” [T]he rearmost driver in a chain-reaction collision bears a presumption of responsibility’ ” … , and “[i]t is well established that a rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle, and imposes a duty on the operator of the moving vehicle to come forward with an adequate, [nonnegligent] explanation for the accident”… . Here, plaintiff met his initial burden of demonstrating that Lipome was negligent in rear-ending Foley’s vehicle, which undisputedly caused the chain-reaction accident. Lipome has not provided any nonnegligent explanation for the collision and, indeed, it appears from the record that Lipome essentially admitted that she was at fault for rear-ending Foley’s vehicle. …

We agree with Lipome, however, that she is entitled to partial summary judgment dismissing the complaint against her insofar as it relates to the accident between plaintiff and Hourt, and we therefore further modify the order accordingly. Lipome’s negligence in the chain-reaction accident “did nothing more than to furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which [plaintiff’s] injury was made possible and which was brought about by the intervention of a new, independent and efficient cause” … , i.e., plaintiff’s conduct in walking back to the accident scene. Prior to plaintiff’s accident with Hourt, the situation resulting from the initial rear-end accident ” was a static, completed occurrence,’ . . . [and] [t]he risk undertaken by plaintiff’ [in walking back to the rear-end accident scene] was created by himself” … . Gustke v Nickerson, 2018 NY Slip Op 02087, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, REAR-MOST DRIVER IN A CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS IN THE LINE OF STOPPED CARS, REAR-MOST DRIVER NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT INJURY WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER DRIVER AFTER GETTING OUT OF HIS CAR (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (REAR-MOST DRIVER IN A CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS IN THE LINE OF STOPPED CARS, REAR-MOST DRIVER NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT INJURY WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER DRIVER AFTER GETTING OUT OF HIS CAR (FOURTH DEPT))/REAR-END COLLISIONS  (REAR-MOST DRIVER IN A CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS IN THE LINE OF STOPPED CARS, REAR-MOST DRIVER NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT INJURY WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER DRIVER AFTER GETTING OUT OF HIS CAR (FOURTH DEPT))/CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENTS  (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, REAR-MOST DRIVER IN A CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS IN THE LINE OF STOPPED CARS, REAR-MOST DRIVER NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT INJURY WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER DRIVER AFTER GETTING OUT OF HIS CAR (FOURTH DEPT))/FURNISH CONDITION FOR ACCIDENT (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, REAR-MOST DRIVER IN A CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS IN THE LINE OF STOPPED CARS, REAR-MOST DRIVER NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT INJURY WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER DRIVER AFTER GETTING OUT OF HIS CAR (FOURTH DEPT))/PEDESTRIANS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, REAR-MOST DRIVER IN A CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS IN THE LINE OF STOPPED CARS, REAR-MOST DRIVER NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT INJURY WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER DRIVER AFTER GETTING OUT OF HIS CAR (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE PLAINTIFF OR PLAINTIFF’S CO-WORKER WHO INJURED PLAINTIFF, THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR SUPPLIED THE EQUIPMENT WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF DID NOT GIVE RISE TO LIABILITY ON THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S PART (FOURTH DEPT).
Warrantless Arrest in Home in Absence of Exigent Circumstances Mandated Suppression; Package from Paraguay Addressed to Defendant Properly Opened as a “Border Search”
THE SEXUAL ABUSE ALLEGATIONS FROM THE 1990’S WERE NOT SUFFICIENTLY SIMILAR TO THE CHARGED OFFENSES AND THEREFORE DID NOT MEET THE “MODUS OPERANDI” CRITERIA UNDER MOLINEUX TO PROVE IDENTITY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS PROPERLY DENIED, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED THE PETITION WITHOUT AFFORDING THE RESPONDENTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER IT (FOURTH DEPT).
A MOTION TO SET ASIDE A JURY VERDICT PURSUANT TO CPL 330.30 (1) MUST BE BASED UPON MATTERS IN THE RECORD; I.E., ISSUES THAT CAN BE RAISED ON APPEAL; HERE THE MOTION WAS BASED ON MATTERS OUTSIDE THE RECORD AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND (FOURTH DEPT).
AN AMENDED STIPULATED ORDER CONCERNING THE WIFE’S INTEREST IN THE HUSBAND’S LIFE INSURANCE AND 401k IN THE CONTEXT OF AN ONGOING DIVORCE ACTION, ISSUED AFTER THE HUSBAND’S DEATH, WAS WITHOUT EFFECT EVEN THOUGH THE ORGINAL STIPULATED ORDER WAS ISSUED ONE DAY BEFORE THE HUSBAND’S DEATH; THE DIVORCE ACTION ABATED UPON THE HUSBAND’S DEATH (FOURTH DEPT).
THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS USURY, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACTION FINANCED THE SALE OF JEWELRY OVER MANY MONTHS, MARKETING THE SALES AS A WAY FOR CONSUMERS TO IMPROVE THEIR CREDIT; THE MAJORITY HELD THE BUSINESS MET THE DEFINITION OF A “CREDIT SERVICES BUSINESS” WITHIN THE MEANING OF GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 458-H (FOURTH DEPT).
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A MOTION TO VACATE A TAX FORECLOSURE JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CPLR 2004 DOES NOT APPLY TO TIME LIMITS SPECIFICALLY CALLED FOR IN THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (RPTL) (FOURTH 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

VILLAGE EMPLOYEE’S TERMINATION BECAUSE HE DID NOT HAVE A COMMERCIAL DRIVER’S... SCHOOL COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN ASSAULT ON PLAINTIFF BY A CLASSMATE IN GYM CLASS,...