By Christopher T. McGrath, Esq. New York
There is a trend in the case law suggesting that a preceding vehicle in a rear end collision scenario is not responsible for the happening of the accident. The cases have suggested that, regardless of the actions taken by the preceding vehicle, the following vehicle is responsible for a rear end collision for failing to keep a proper and safe distance. A recent decision, however, by the highest court in New York State has opened the door to liability against a preceding vehicle that stopped suddenly and caused an accident.
The Court of Appeals in Tutrani v. County of Suffolk, 10 N.Y.3d 906, 2008 NY Slip Op. 05349 (2008), revg 42 A.D.3d 496, 840 N.Y.S.2d 809 (2d Dep’t 2007) held that the actions of the preceding vehicle may indeed be relevant to the happening of an ensuing rear end accident. There, the preceding vehicle was a police car driven by a police officer on duty. The police officer had been traveling at approximately forty miles per hour when he “abruptly decelerated” to one to two miles per hour while changing lanes. The plaintiff was traveling immediately behind the police officer and managed to avoid colliding with the officer’s vehicle after slamming on the brakes and stopping within feet of the preceding officer’s car.
While the plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped a third vehicle came along and rear ended plaintiff’s vehicle. A jury found that the officer acted recklessly and apportioned fifty percent of fault to the officer and fifty percent of fault to the vehicle that rear-ended the plaintiff’s car. The Appellate Division reversed the judgment as it related to the police officer and dismissed the complaint against him and his employer, the County of Suffolk. The Court of Appeals reversed and held that, as a matter of law, the jury could rationally find that the police officer’s actions were a proximate cause of the ensuing rear end collision. It noted that the officer “abruptly slowed his vehicle to a near stop in a travel lane of a busy highway where vehicles could reasonably expect that traffic would continue unimpeded.” Thus, his actions set in motion a chain of events between the plaintiff’s vehicle and the ensuing car. The court noted that “it is irrelevant that plaintiff was able to stop her vehicle” without striking the police car. Noting that rear end collisions generally result in liability against the driver who makes contact with the rear of a vehicle, the court finds that the actions of the vehicle which rear-ended the plaintiff did not absolve the police officer’s reckless conduct. By driving in the way that he did, the officer’s “actions created a foreseeable danger that vehicles would have to brake aggressively in an effort to avoid the lane and obstruction created by [the officer’s] vehicle, thereby increasing the risk of rear end collisions.”