Summary
In Kienzle v. McLoughlin, 202 A.D.2d 299 (1st Dept. 1994), the First Department held that an emergency situation confronting the driver of a vehicle which rear-ends another vehicle would suffice as a non-negligent explanation that would rebut the prima facie case established by the fact of the rear-end collision.
Summary of this case from Speidel v. Sodexho, Inc.Opinion
March 17, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Patrick Henry, J.).
In this rear end collision case, the IAS Court properly denied plaintiffs' motions for a directed verdict and to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence, as the jury was presented with widely divergent versions of the accident, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, a reasonable jury could have credited defendant's testimony that plaintiff came to a sudden stop after being cut off by a third vehicle, and found that defendant, therefore, was not negligent in striking plaintiff's vehicle (see, Marton v. McCasland, 16 A.D.2d 781). There was no error with respect to the admission of limited evidence concerning the damage to plaintiff's vehicle because it bore significantly on the liability issue and plaintiff's credibility.
We have considered plaintiffs' other contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.