In Garcia v. Stewart, plaintiff was lawfully driving her car when a vehicle driving in the opposite direction crossed the double-yellow line and crashed into her car. The driver of the other vehicle admittedly fell asleep at the wheel.   Another vehicle was also traveling directly behind plaintiff’s car. After plaintiff’s car was hit, it was pushed backwards. The vehicle behind her tried to avoid the collision by swerving, but could not get out of the way in time and collided with plaintiff’s car a couple seconds after the initial impact. Plaintiff sued both the driver of the car that initially caused the collision and the driver of the car behind her. The second driver, the movant, moved for summary judgment dismissing all claims against him but the Supreme Court denied the motion.

The First Department reversed holding that the emergency doctrine applied. Under the emergency doctrine, “when an actor is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or causes the actor to be reasonably so disturbed that the actor must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the action may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context.” The court held that the movant’s testimony was consistent with the other parties version of the accident and neither plaintiff nor the other driver offered anything more than mere speculation and surmise to show how the third driver could have avoided the accident.

In New York, there is a presumption of negligence against the rear-most driver in a rear-end collision. However, that presumption may be rebutted by evidence of a non-negligent explanation. The First Department got this right when it found that the emergency situation adequately excused the trailing driver’s actions.

Thanks to Anne Henry for her contribution to this post. If you have any questions or comments, please email Paul at .