You are here: / / NOT ALL REAR-END COLLISIONS ARE SOLELY THE FAULT OF THE REAR DRIVER; HERE...
,

NOT ALL REAR-END COLLISIONS ARE SOLELY THE FAULT OF THE REAR DRIVER; HERE PLAINTIFF, THE REAR DRIVER, RAISED CREDIBILITY ISSUES BY CONTRADICTING A STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF IN THE POLICE REPORT AND AVERRING DEFENDANT STOPPED SUDDENLY WITHOUT USING A TURN SIGNAL (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, the driver of the car which rear-ended defendant’s car, raised a question of fact about the whether the defendant stopped suddenly without using a turn signal:

“There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident” … , and a defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the accident … . “Not every rear-end collision is the exclusive fault of the rearmost driver. The frontmost driver also has the duty not to stop suddenly or slow down without proper signaling so as to avoid a collision” … .

… [T]he plaintiff raised questions of credibility, which are for the jury to determine … . The plaintiff disputed the content of his statement, as reflected in the police accident report, as well as the veracity of the defendant’s deposition testimony as to how the accident occurred. Specifically, the plaintiff disputed that the defendant utilized his left turn signal and averred that the defendant came to a sudden stop at the intersection. Kerper v Betancourt, 2024 NY Slip Op 01296, Second Dept 3-13-24

Practice Point: In this rear-end collision case, the plaintiff, the rear driver, raised credibility issues which can only be resolved by a jury. Plaintiff contradicted a statement attributed to him in the police report and averred that defendant stopped suddenly without using a turn signal. The rear driver in a rear-end collision is not always solely at fault.

 

You might also like
THE PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND BREACH OF WARRANTY CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING THE FAILURE OF AN IMPLANTED MEDICAL DEVICE WHICH ASSISTS THE HEART WERE PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW; THE CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ENGINEERS WHO REPLACED THE LEAD TO THE DEVICE WERE NOT PREEMPTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE FINDING OF A SINGLE INSTANCE OF NEGLECT OF FATHER’S 14-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER; BUT THAT EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT A FINDING OF DERIVATIVE NEGLECT RE: FATHER’S YOUNGER DAUGHTER (SECOND DEPT). ​
THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL (INADEQUATE LIGHTING), DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.
COMMERCIAL LIABILITY CARRIER NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND FORECLOSURE OF MECHANIC’S LIENS, POLICY ONLY COVERS PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE AND ADVERTISING INJURY (SECOND DEPT).
AFTER RESPONDENT-STUDENT THREATENED TO “SHOOT… UP THE SCHOOL,” PETITIONER-POLICE-DEPARTMENT FILED A PETITION FOR AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER PURSUANT TO CPLR ARTICLE 63-A WHICH SUPREME COURT DENIED ON THE GROUND THE STATUTE VIOLATES THE SECOND AMENDMENT; THE APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED FINDING THE STATUTE CONSTITUTIONAL (SECOND DEPT).
Existence of Elevator Maintenance Contract Did Not Rule Out Duty of Care to Elevator User
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE FIRST DETERMINED WHETHER ANY DISTRIBUTEES OF THE DECEASED MORTGAGORS WERE NECESSARY PARTIES [RPAPL 1311 (1)] AND, IF SO, SUMMON THEM PURSUANT TO CPLR 1001 [b]; THE MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO JOIN NECESSARY PARTIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Raised a Triable Issue of Fact Under the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur—Plaintiff Alleged a Bone Was Fractured During Surgery

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

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED CONSTRUCTION WORK ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY CAUSED WATER... BECAUSE MOTHER HAD RELINQUISHED CUSTODY OF THE CHILD TO THE MATERNAL GRANDFATHER...