You are here: / / IN A REAR-END COLLISION CASE, IN ORDER TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT...
,

IN A REAR-END COLLISION CASE, IN ORDER TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER BRAKE-FAILURE WAS THE CAUSE, THE DEFENDANT MUST DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE WAS UNANTICIPATED AND REASONABLE CARE WAS TAKEN TO KEEP THE BRAKES IN GOOD WORKING ORDER; NOT THE CASE HERE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end traffic accident case should have been granted. Defendants’ claim that the brakes failed did not raise a question of fact:

… [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, requiring that operator to come forward with evidence of a nonnegligent explanation for the collision to rebut the inference of negligence” … . “A nonnegligent explanation may include a mechanical failure, a sudden, unexplained stop of the vehicle ahead, an unavoidable skidding on wet pavement, or any other reasonable cause” … . Where the defendants lay the blame for the accident on brake failure, it is incumbent upon them to show that the brake failure was unanticipated and that reasonable care was exercised to keep the brakes in good working order … .

Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by submitting his affidavit wherein he averred that his vehicle had been stopped for approximately 10 seconds for a red traffic light when it was struck in the rear by the defendants’ vehicle … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the alleged brake failure was unanticipated and whether reasonable care was exercised to keep the brakes in good working order … . Wesa v Consolidated Bus Tr., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 02690, Second Dept 4-29-26

Practice Point: Where a defendant in a rear-end collision case claims brake failure was the cause, in order to survive summary judgment defendant must demonstrate the failure was unanticipated and reasonable care had been taken to keep the brakes in good working order.

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE CITY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ROAD DEFECT WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PETITIONER-BUS-DRIVER’S ACCIDENT, THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE CITY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF PETITIONER’S ACCIDENT, INJURIES OR THE FACTS UNDERLYING HER THEORY OF LIABILITY; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE PEOPLE’S APPLICATION FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH ARTICLE 3 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT PROHIBITS CONSIDERATION OF A NEW YORK JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSEMENT, CONSIDERATION OF A NEW JERSEY JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION IS NOT PROHIBITED (SECOND DEPT).
THE TOWN HAD THE AUTHORITY TO BRING DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER AND THE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RETIREE BENEFITS SET FORTH IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THE EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLONGE WAS FIRMLY ATTACHED TO THE NOTE; EVIDENCE FIRST OFFERED IN REPLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
THE INSURER’S ACCEPTANCE OF PREMIUM PAYMENTS AFTER IT LEARNED OF THE MISREPRESENTATION ABOUT THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM WAIVED THE INSURER’S RIGHT TO RESCIND THE POLICY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM IN THIS PEDESTRIAN HIT-AND-RUN ACTION WAS NOT AUTOMATICALLY ASSIGNED TO THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION WHEN PLAINTIFF ACCEPTED A SETTLEMENT; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANT TAXICAB COMPANY AND THE DRIVERS WHO WERE ON DUTY WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS A ‘BORROWER’ AND THEREFORE WAS ENTITLED TO THE 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304; THE BANK HAD ARGUED SHE WAS NOT A BORROWER BECAUSE SHE DID NOT SIGN THE NOTE (SECOND 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 EXPERT TESTIMONY OFFERED TO DEMONSTRATE A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOW-BIRTH-WEIGHT...