Lopez v. Minot

Decision Date16 February 1999
Citation685 N.Y.S.2d 469,258 A.D.2d 564
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
PartiesLUIS A. LOPEZ et al., Appellants,<BR>v.<BR>JEFFREY MINOT, Respondent.

Santucci, J.P., Altman, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant's motion for leave to serve an amended answer is denied, the plaintiffs' cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for an inquest on damages.

A rear-end collision into a stopped automobile creates a prima facie case of liability with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle, imposing a duty of explanation on its operator (Leal v Wolff, 224 AD2d 392; Barile v Lazzarini, 222 AD2d 635; Gambino v City of New York, 205 AD2d 583; Starace v Inner Circle Qonexions, 198 AD2d 493; Edney v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 178 AD2d 398; Benyarko v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 162 AD2d 572, 573). The operator of the moving vehicle is required to rebut the inference of negligence created by an unexplained rear-end collision (see, Pfaffenbach v White Plains Express Corp., 17 NY2d 132, 135), because he or she is in the best position to explain whether the collision was due to a reasonable, non-negligent cause (Carter v Castle Elec. Contr. Co., 26 AD2d 83, 85). If the operator cannot come forward with any evidence to rebut the inference of negligence, the plaintiffs may properly be awarded judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability (see, Starace v Inner Circle Qonexions, supra, at 493; Young v City of New York, 113 AD2d 833, 834).

Here, it is undisputed that the traffic was slowing down and speeding up, and that the defendant saw some "swerving" vehicles in front of the plaintiffs' van. The plaintiff Luis Lopez managed to bring his van to a safe stop, but there is no explanation as to why the defendant could not do the same. The defendant's deposition testimony, taken more than a year after the accident, that he could not "remember noticing" brake and other lights on the rear of the plaintiffs' van, does not adequately rebut the inference of negligence (see, e.g., Leal v Wolff, 224 AD2d 392, supra; Barile v Lazzarini, 222 AD2d 635, supra). The defendant was under a duty to maintain a safe distance between his vehicle and the plaintiffs' vehicle (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]), and his failure to do so in the absence of a reasonable, non-negligent explanation constituted negligence as a matter of law...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT