Summary judgment in rear-end automobile collision cases

An operator of a motor vehicle in New York must follow a myriad of rules when operating a vehicle, among them to make reasonable use of his or her senses, be aware of traffic conditions, drive at a safe rate of speed under the existing conditions, and maintain a safe distance from other vehicles under the existing conditions.  See Miller v DeJouza, 165 AD3d 550, 550 (1st Dept 2018).  

The traffic rules are codified.  New York Vehicle Traffic Law §1129(a), for instance, provides that “[t]he driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway.”  A violation of this traffic law, like all traffic laws, constitutes negligence per se.  See Sanchez v. Oxcin, 157 A.D.3d 561, 564 (1st Dep’t 2018).

Thus, the law has evolved that 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 the operator to come forward with admissible proof of a non-negligent explanation for the accident.  See Urena v. GVC Ltd., 160 A.D.3d 467, 467 (1st Dep’t 2018).  The argument that the front vehicle stopped abruptly does not explain or excuse the failure to maintain a safe distance and therefore, is insufficient to constitute a non-negligent explanation.

In our case, where our client was a passenger in a vehicle struck from the rear, we proved a prima facie case of negligence and the driver of the rear vehicle was unable to offer a non-negligent explanation.  We won summary judgment, which not only gives us a profound advantage at trial but also, starts the clock running for purposes of calculating pre-judgment interest.