Summary
stating that "[i]t is well established that evidence of a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle constitutes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the moving vehicle, which may be rebutted by evidence that the vehicle in front stopped suddenly," and holding that the lower court "properly determined that issues of fact exist[ed] concerning whether the first three vehicles in this five-car accident . . . stopped suddenly and their reasons for doing so"
Summary of this case from Chen v. Spring Tailor, L.L.C.Opinion
March 15, 2011.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert E. Torres, J.), entered April 7, 2010, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a multi-vehicle accident, denied defendants-appellants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
It is well established that evidence of a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle constitutes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the moving vehicle ( see De La Cruz v Ock Wee Leong, 16 AD3d 199), which may be rebutted by evidence that the vehicle in front stopped suddenly ( see Barry v City of New York, 283 AD2d 300). Here, the motion court properly determined that issues of fact exist concerning whether the first three vehicles in this five-car accident, including appellants' cars, stopped suddenly and their reasons for doing so.