Co-chair of the firm’s Commercial Trucking and Logistics Liability Defense Group, Keith Harris, was granted summary judgment in a matter relating to a collision involving two 18-wheel tractor-trailers. The plaintiff and the defendant driver were both traveling on a highway in the same direction. The plaintiff, in the right lane, claimed the defendant driver moved in front of him from the roadway’s right-hand shoulder. The plaintiff also claimed the defendant was traveling at an unsafe speed below the posted speed limit. As a result of the defendant’s alleged negligence, the plaintiff struck the rear of the defendant’s tractor and sustained substantial injuries. The plaintiff claimed his injuries justified his settlement demand of policy limits.
The defendant driver denied traveling on the shoulder at any time. The defendant did acknowledge traveling below the speed limit. Because the roadway sloped upward and because the defendant’s trailer was fully loaded, he was unable to reach the posted speed limit. At the time of the accident, the defendant had his flashers on to alert other drivers of his reduced speed.
The plaintiff filed suit in the Supreme Court of New York, Kings County. New York applies pure comparative negligence, which favors the plaintiff. Additional concern was prompted by the venue which is generally considered favorable to plaintiffs and known for generous verdicts.
New York law presumes fault on the part of a following driver involved in a motor vehicle accident. The presumption can be rebutted only if the following driver has a non-negligent explanation for striking the lead vehicle in the rear. Typically, this presumption of fault is weaponized by plaintiffs involved in rear end accidents. Plaintiffs in many rear end collisions successfully seek summary judgment on the issue of liability.
In this instance, the defendants asked the Court to apply the presumption of fault against the plaintiff. Instead of using the presumption of fault in support of an affirmative claim, the defendants encouraged the Court to consider the presumption defensively. The plaintiff argued that fault in this case had to be decided by a jury because it required factual determinations. The plaintiff argued that pure comparative fault was designed to allow a plaintiff recovery in any instance where a defendant has any fault. The plaintiff also claimed the motion for summary judgment had to be denied because discovery in the matter was not complete.
The Court adopted the defendant’s argument that in this instance the presumption of fault in rear end collisions required the plaintiff to provide a non-negligent explanation for the collision. After evaluating the plaintiff’s opposition arguments and supporting affidavit, the Court ruled the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of fault and dismissed all claims against Burns White’s clients.