Sudden Stop No Defense To Rear End Hit (NY)

Because it is incumbent on a driver to maintain a safe distance to other vehicles for present road conditions, it is generally difficult to avoid liability for rear end hits.  Nonetheless, the most frequent defense is that a leading driver stopped suddenly thereby causing the accident.  However, this defense provides marginal cover and only under the right circumstances.

In Brothers v Bartling, the plaintiffs were passengers in a vehicle that was attempting to merge onto the Belt Parkway in slow traffic conditions when the car was rear-ended.  Defendants, Price and Gill, the owner and driver of the car in which plaintiffs were riding, moved for summary judgment.  Although they argued that the driver of the car that rear ended their vehicle was solely at fault, the trial court denied the motion on the basis of an alleged sudden stop.

The Second Department reversed the decision and granted Price and Gill’s summary judgment motion.  The Appellate Division explained that rear-end collisions create a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the rear vehicle.  Accordingly, the operator of a following vehicle had the duty to “rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision.”  While a non-negligent explanation could include a sudden stop if it is unforeseeable, this defense is unavailing where a driver should anticipate stopping traffic.   Given that traffic was moving slowly at the time of the plaintiffs’ accident and the Price/Gill vehicle was merging onto the parkway, the Appellate Division was unpersuaded by the sudden stop defense.

Thanks to Georgia Coats for her contribution.

For more information, contact Denise Fontana Ricci at .