In this personal injury action, plaintiff was in a two-vehicle collision that occurred on June 8, 2004. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability only. The motion was supported by an affidavit from plaintiff Cesar Molina, who averred that he was driving his vehicle on June 8, 2004, and had brought it to a complete stop on Route 303, due to a red traffic light, and so as to permit another vehicle to merge onto Route 303. Approximately fiveseconds after stopping, his vehicle was rear-ended by defendants vehicle. Based upon these circumstances, plaintiffs claimed they were entitled to judgment on the liability as a matter of law.

According to the defendant, the collision occurred in a different manner. He claimed that after both his and plaintiffs vehicles had been stopped at a red light, the light turned green, and, after starting to move forward, plaintiff suddenly came to a short stop, which caused defendants vehicle to bump the rear of plaintiffs vehicle.

When a driver approaches another vehicle from the rear, he is bound to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed and use reasonable care to avoid colliding with the other vehicle. Thus, a rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates an inference of negligence and a prima facie case of liability on the part of the operator of the offending vehicle and imposes upon such operator a duty of explanation.

The failure to offer a non-negligent explanation for the collision constitutes negligence as a matter of law.

However, not every rear-end collision is the exclusive fault of the rearmost driver; the frontmost driver also has the duty not to stop suddenly, or slow down without proper signaling so as to avoid a collision, and a triable issue of fact can successfully be raised in such circumstance.

After this courts careful consideration of the record before it, the parties respective arguments and application of the foregoing principles of law, plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability is denied, the court finds that defendant successfully has raised an issue of fact as to plaintiffs negligence in the happening of this accident. Accepting for the purpose of this motion only defendants disputed version of the circumstances surrounding the occurrence of this crash, i.e., that plaintiff, after beginning to move forward, suddenly stopped without warning or explanation, the court is constrained to find that a triable issue of fact has been raised.

While this court would agree that there appears to be a lack of consistency in appellate authority, particularly in the Second Department, with respect to whether a claim that a driver stopped suddenly, resulting in a rear end collision, is sufficient to constitute a non-negligent explanation for the happening of the accident, this court suggests that perhaps the cases can be harmonized to the extent that a claim of sudden stopping in heavy or stop and go traffic, which claim is not presented at bar, does not constitute a non-negligent explanation for the happening of a rear end collision.

The motion was denied.

Molina v. Ianniello, 2005 NY Slip Op 51719(U) (Supreme Court, Rockland County) (Smith, J.)