- within Finance and Banking and Strategy topic(s)
It is often notoriously difficult to defeat summary judgment in a rear-end collision case in New York. This is because under established case law, a “rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision.”
An assertion that the lead vehicle came to a “sudden stop” is generally insufficient to rebut the presumption. For the “driver of a vehicle approaching another vehicle from the rear is required to maintain a reasonably safe distance and rate of speed under the prevailing conditions to avoid colliding with the other vehicle,” and so “stops by a lead vehicle which are foreseeable under the prevailing traffic conditions, even if sudden and frequent, must be anticipated by the driver who follows.” Simply put, “an assertion that the lead vehicle came to a sudden stop, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle.”
But, while rare, this is not always the case. New York appellate courts have held that a lead vehicle’s sudden stop at a green light, while approaching an intersection, or on a highway, against the flow of traffic, can provide a non-negligent explanation. This is because, in these circumstances, the driver of the rear vehicle is generally entitled to anticipate that traffic will continue unimpeded.
In a recent case being defended by the Lewis Brisbois transportation team in New York, Correa v. Cannon, 280 A.D.3d 663 (2d Dep’t 2025), they successfully leveraged this distinction to obtain the reversal of an award of summary judgment to the plaintiffs on appeal. Correa concerned a rear-ended collision on the Van Wyck Expressway, in Queens, NY, precipitated by the lead vehicle’s sudden stop. The lower court awarded the plaintiffs partial summary judgment on liability—even though the insured’s affidavit, submitted in opposition, provided that there was no reason for the plaintiffs’ vehicle to stop, as there was no traffic ahead of their vehicle. On appeal, the Second Department reversed, holding: “[The] affidavit of the defendant driver, submitted in opposition to the motion, raised triable issues of fact as to how the accident occurred and whether the defendants had a nonnegligent explanation for their vehicle striking the plaintiffs’ vehicle. According to the defendant driver, the plaintiff driver was solely at fault in causing the accident by making a sudden stop for no apparent reason in the middle of their lane of traffic on the highway.”
Correa highlights the relentless defense approach to even the toughest of cases. While a sudden stop is generally insufficient to defeat liability in a rear-end collision case, this is not always the case, and, when plaintiffs represent otherwise, Lewis Brisbois will be there to hold their feet to the fire. For not all sudden stops are equal.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
