The emergency doctrine does not apply to rear-end collisions.
The plaintiff argued the defendant suddenly stopped, whereas the defendant argued he slowed down at a reasonable rate when approaching the intersection. The end result was a rear-rend collision. The court found that, regardless of the dispute as to the plaintiff’s factual allegations, the Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129(a) requires drivers to leave a reasonable distance between vehicles in front of them. Thus, the occurrence was one of a common traffic matter, not a reaction to an emergency.
Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2018
Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2018 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.