Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog
When car crashes occur, the parties involved will often dispute who is at fault. In cases involving rear-end collisions, though, there is a presumption that the second driver bears liability. Regardless, a driver who causes a rear-end accident may argue that the injured party was comparatively negligent, and as discussed in a recent New York ruling, they may be able to present evidence of such claims at trial. If you were hurt in a collision caused by a careless driver, you should consult a Syracuse personal injury lawyer as soon as possible to discuss what claims you may be able to pursue.
Facts of the Case and Procedural Setting
It is alleged that in June 2014, the plaintiff’s vehicle was rear-ended by a tractor-trailer operated by the defendant driver and owned by the defendant trucking company. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained in the accident. In response, the defendants raised several defenses, including the claim of comparative negligence. The plaintiff then moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability and sought to dismiss the defendants’ affirmative defenses related to comparative negligence. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion, which prompted the plaintiff to appeal.
Comparative Negligence in Car Accident Cases
On appeal, the court reviewed whether the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability and whether the defendants’ affirmative defenses of comparative negligence should be dismissed.
The court noted that a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle typically establishes a prima facie case of negligence against the driver of the rear vehicle, shifting the burden to that driver to provide a non-negligent explanation for the collision. In this case, the plaintiff provided evidence, including an affidavit, demonstrating that her vehicle was parked on the side of a service road with hazard lights activated when it was struck from behind by the defendants’ vehicle.
In response, the defendants failed to provide admissible evidence to rebut this inference of negligence. Consequently, the court determined that the plaintiff had established her entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Regarding the plaintiff’s request to dismiss the defendants’ affirmative defenses of comparative negligence, however, the court found that the defendants raised triable issues of fact. These issues included whether the plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped on an entrance ramp to the expressway, which could potentially implicate the plaintiff in the occurrence of the accident.
As a result, the court ruled that the trial court had correctly denied the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the defendants’ comparative negligence defenses. The court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s decision, allowing the comparative negligence issue to proceed to trial.
Talk to a Capable Syracuse Personal Injury Attorney
If you were hurt in a rear-end collision, you may be owed damages, and you should talk to a lawyer about your options. At DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers, our capable Syracuse personal injury attorneys understand what it takes to prevail in cases against reckless drivers, and if we represent you, we will fight tirelessly on your behalf. You can reach us through our form online or by calling us at 833-247-8427 to arrange a conference.