Shamah v. Richmond County Ambulance Service, Inc.

• Decision Date: 22 January 2001
• Citation: 279 A.D.2d 564,719 N.Y.S.2d 287
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: DAWN SHAMAH, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>RICHMOND COUNTY AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. et al., Respondents.

279 A.D.2d 564

719 N.Y.S.2d 287

DAWN SHAMAH, Appellant,

v.RICHMOND COUNTY AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. et al., Respondents.

Decided January 22, 2001.

Krausman, J.P., Luciano, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.

This action arises from a collision in which an ambulance owned by the defendant Richmond County Ambulance Service, Inc., and operated by the defendant Joshua F. Henry rearended a car driven by the plaintiff which was stopped at an intersection while waiting to make a left turn. Henry, who had been following the plaintiff's car and had been keeping a distance of two car-lengths behind it, testified at his examination before trial that he observed the plaintiff's signal and brake lights before the collision. However, when he applied his brakes the ambulance skidded on the wet roadway and struck the rear of the plaintiff's car. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding an issue of fact as to whether the accident was caused by a sudden stop by the plaintiff's vehicle and the unavoidable skidding of the ambulance. We reverse.

It is well settled that a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the driver of the moving vehicle, requiring the operator of that vehicle to come forward with a non-negligent explanation for the accident (see, Leal v Wolff, 224 AD2d 392). Conclusory assertions of a sudden and unexpected stop are insufficient to rebut the inference of negligence (see, Levine v Taylor, 268 AD2d 566; Corbly v Butler, 226 AD2d 418; Benyarko v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 162 AD2d 572; Young v City of New York, 113 AD2d 833). Moreover, vehicle stops which are foreseeable under the prevailing traffic conditions, even if sudden and frequent, must be anticipated by the driver who follows, since he or she is under a duty to maintain a safe distance between his or her car and the car ahead (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]; Levine v Taylor, supra; Mascitti v Greene, 250 AD2d 821; Leal v Wolff, supra; Barba v Best Sec. Corp., 235 AD2d 381; Cohen v Terranella, 112 AD2d 264).

Both the plaintiff and the ambulance passenger testified that the plaintiff had stopped at the intersection for a full 20 to 30 seconds before the defendant's ambulance collided with her car. Henry was aware that the plaintiff had stopped to make a left turn. Under these...