Williams v. Harbor Freight Transport Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Harbor Freight Transport Co.

43 A.D.3d 919, 841 N.Y.S.2d 607

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 11, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A.D.3d 919 (Williams v. Harbor Freight Transport Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. Harbor Freight Transport Co., 43 A.D.3d 919, 841 N.Y.S.2d 607 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated March 2, 2006, which denied her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Generally, a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty on the operator of the moving vehicle to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision (see Gregsoh v Terry, 35 AD3d 358 [2006]; Carhuayano v J&R Hacking, 28 AD3d 413 [2006]). In response to the plaintiffs demonstration of her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendants submitted evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant driver’s vehicle came in contact with the plaintiffs vehicle (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Skelos and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated March 2, 2006, which denied her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Generally, a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty on the operator of the moving vehicle to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision (see Gregsoh v Terry, 35 AD3d 358 [2006]; Carhuayano v J&R Hacking, 28 AD3d 413 [2006]). In response to the plaintiffs demonstration of her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendants submitted evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant driver’s vehicle came in contact with the plaintiffs vehicle (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Skelos and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 919, 841 N.Y.S.2d 607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-harbor-freight-transport-co-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack