In Pacheco v. Grabowski, a rear-end car accident case, the New York Supreme Court, Queens County, granted summary judgment in favor of the driver of the front (i.e., rear-ended) car.
Plaintiff Yesenia Pacheco was a passenger in a car driven by her father, defendant Angel Pacheco. While stopped at an intersection the Pacheco car was hit from behind by a car driven by co-defendant Grabowski hit the Pacheco car.
Angel moved for summary judgment “on the ground that his vehicle was completely stopped at the intersection when it was struck in the rear by the Grabowski vehicle and, as such, the evidence shows that he could not be liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff.”
The court agreed.
It began by stating the law applicable to rear-end car accident cases:
When the driver of an automobile approaches another automobile from the rear, he or she is bound to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed and control over his or her vehicle, and to exercise reasonable care to avoid colliding with the other vehicle. It is well established law that a rear-end collision creates a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the driver of the rearmost vehicle, requiring the operator of that vehicle to proffer an adequate, non-negligent explanation for the accident.
Defendant Angel Pacheco satisfied his summary judgment burden by testifying “that his vehicle was at a complete stop at a red traffic signal while waiting to make a right turn when it was suddenly struck from behind by the Grabowski vehicle.”
The burden then shifted to plaintiff and co-defendant Grabowski “to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Pacheco was also negligent, and if so, whether that negligence contributed to the happening of the accident.”
The court granted summary judgment to defendant Pacheco, reasoning:
Here, there is no dispute that Donna Grabowski was driving the vehicle that rear-ended the Pacheco vehicle and no dispute that she admitted to the police officer at the scene that she did not see the Pacheco vehicle stopped in front of her until she crashed into it. … This court finds, therefore, that defendant Donna Grabowski, who did not submit an affidavit in opposition to the motion, failed to provide evidence as to a non-negligent explanation for the accident sufficient to raise a triable question of fact. … Further, the lack of disclosure does not excuse the failure of the party with personal knowledge to submit an affidavit in opposition to the motion.
It rejected defendant Grabowski’s argument that Pacheco’s motion for summary judgment was premature, since Grabowski did not offer any evidence to suggest that further discovery may lead to relevant evidence.