Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Christina M. D'AGOSTINO, appellant, v. YRC, INC., et al., respondents, et al., defendants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Bartlett, J.), dated July 31, 2012, which denied her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
During the late night hours of October 22, 2010, the plaintiff was driving in the northbound right lane of Interstate 87, near Tuxedo, when her vehicle was involved in a collision with a tractor-trailer. As a result of the collision, the plaintiff's vehicle became disabled and was stopped in the right lane. As the plaintiff sat in her vehicle after the collision, it was struck from behind by a tractor-trailer operated by the defendant Peter J. Timpe, Jr., and owned by the defendant YRC, Inc. (hereinafter YRC), a trucking company. The plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, YRC and Timpe (hereinafter together the YRC defendants). The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and the Supreme Court denied the motion.
A rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence against the driver of the moving vehicle (see Robayo v. Aghaabdul, 109 AD3d 892; Gleason v. Villegas, 81 AD3d 889,890; Gross v. Marc, 2 AD3d 681; Filippazzo v. Santiago, 277 A.D.2d 419, 420). A defendant can overcome the presumption of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision (see Perez v. Roberts, 91 AD3d 620; Leal v. Wolff, 224 A.D.2d 392). However, “[i]f the operator cannot come forward with any evidence to rebut the inference of negligence, the plaintiff may properly be awarded judgment as a matter of law” (Barile v. Lazzarini, 222 A.D.2d 635, 636). A nonnegligent explanation includes, but is not limited to, “sudden or unavoidable circumstances” (Gambino v. City of New York, 205 A.D.2d 583).
Here, although the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that YRC's vehicle struck the rear of her vehicle while it was stopped in the right lane (see Robayo v. Aghaabdul, 109 AD3d at 893), the YRC defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether they had a nonnegligent explanation for the collision (see Rivera v. Gardillo, 113 AD3d 667). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: September 17, 2014
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)