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
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO THE REFORMATION OF THE INSURANCE POLICY TO NAME HIM AS MORTGAGEE; ALL PARTIES AGREED THEY INTENDED TO SO NAME THE PLAINTIFF AND THE FAILURE TO DO SO WAS THE RESULT OF A MISTAKE; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF THE FIRE-DAMAGE PROCEEDS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER’S ACTS OR NEGLECT (THIRD DEPT).
WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
COURT OF CLAIMS DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ISSUE, REVIEW OF AN AGENCY DETERMINATION MUST BE BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).
Instructor at Community College Entitled to Unemployment Benefits, No Reasonable Assurance of Continued Employment
CRIMINAL SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE FIRST DEGREE AND THE RELATED CONSPIRACY CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).
BACK AND NECK INJURIES PROPERLY RULED AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE RESULTING FROM REPETITIVE LIFTING AND CARRYING (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE HOSPITAL’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PURELY VICARIOUS, ATTORNEYS FOR BOTH THE HOSPITAL AND THE EMPLOYEE-PHYSICIAN WERE PROPERLY ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TRIAL, PLAINTIFFS’ MID-TRIAL REQUEST TO CALL AN EXPERT WITNESS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AND THE APPLICABLE INSURANCE LAW PROVISIONS, AND UNDER THE PRINCIPLES OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT, PLAINTIFF EMPLOYEE, NOT DEFENDANT EMPLOYER, WAS ENTITLED TO THE DEMUTUALIZATION PROCEEDS WHEN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURANCE CARRIER CONVERTED FROM A MUTUAL TO A STOCK INSURANCE COMPANY, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER PAID THE POLICY PREMIUMS (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...