AND AD2 HITS THEM WHERE IT HURTS
After KB suffered a rear-end hit from a vehicle operated by AMK, and owned by Ecolab, Inc, a personal-injury case was filed with the Queens County Supreme Court.
Prior to the completion of discovery, KB moved for an order finding the defendants liable for his injuries, and when that motion was denied, he appealed.
The Appellate Division, Second Department, reiterated the established law that when there is a rear-end collision, that makes out a “prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle.” To challenge or rebut that “inference,” that operator is required to provide “a non-negligent explanation for the collision.”
Since the defendants papers failed to satisfy that standard, and because it didn't think the application was “premature,” (even though discovery hadn't yet been completed), the AD2 reversed the motion’s denial and awarded KB summary judgment on the issue of liability.
That had to be a pain in the rear ….
# # #
DECISION