Attorneys and Parties

Regina Goss-Lawson
Plaintiff-Appellant
Attorneys: David S. Levy

Matco Service Corporation and 'John Doe'
Defendant-Respondent
Attorneys: Nicholas P. Colabria

Brief Summary

Issue

Motor vehicle negligence—rear-end collision liability and summary judgment burden shifting under Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) § 1129[a] [prohibits following another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent].

Lower Court Held

Denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability.

What Was Overturned

The denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability.

Why

Plaintiff’s affidavit established a prima facie case by showing her vehicle was stopped in traffic when rear-ended. Defendant’s claim of an abrupt, unexpected stop, without more, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence in a rear-end collision and does not constitute a nonnegligent explanation under controlling First Department precedent and VTL § 1129[a]. Plaintiff was not required to disprove comparative fault to obtain summary judgment.

Background

Plaintiff was in a line of vehicles entering a highway. After the car ahead stopped, plaintiff also came to a complete stop and was then rear-ended by a truck operated for defendant Matco Service Corporation (and an unidentified 'John Doe' operator). Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on liability based on the rear-end presumption.

Lower Court Decision

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability.

Appellate Division Reversal

The Appellate Division unanimously reversed and granted plaintiff summary judgment on liability, holding that a rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence against the rear driver, and defendant’s assertion of an abrupt stop, without evidentiary detail, is insufficient to provide a nonnegligent explanation.

Legal Significance

Reaffirms the First Department rule that rear-end collisions establish a prima facie case of negligence against the following driver; conclusory claims of a sudden stop do not rebut the presumption. Clarifies that a plaintiff need not negate comparative fault to secure summary judgment on liability, consistent with Rodriguez v City of New York.

🔑 Key Takeaway

In rear-end collision cases, a plaintiff who was stopped or stopping establishes a prima facie case of negligence; absent a specific, nonnegligent explanation beyond a conclusory 'sudden stop,' summary judgment on liability should be granted to the plaintiff.