Decoding Rear-End Collision PJIs

Rear-end collisions can be serious wrecks, leaving accident victims with significant injuries to the head, neck, back, and other areas. Although these accidents are typically indicative of negligence from the driver “causing” the rear-end, there are situations in which valid explanations can negate this presumption. Pattern jury instructions can help jurors better comprehend the parties’ respective roles and potential faults, and standardize the information they receive concerning the charge.

Voldz Law has extensive experience with New York pattern jury instructions, specifically as they apply to rear-end collisions. If you are an attorney representing a personal injury victim who has been injured in a motor vehicle crash, let us connect to discuss a referral partnership.

Things To Keep In Mind For Rear-End Collision PJIs

As the case of Leguen vs. the City of New York demonstrates, PJIs have tangible consequences for parties to rear-end automobile wrecks. An experienced rear-end collision lawyer understands that PJIs must reflect both the potential outcome of the case (e.g. jail versus a damages award) and the burden of proof. Accordingly, the way you tailor your strategy around rear-end collision PJIs will significantly influence a juror’s understanding of the law and how they apply it to the facts of your client’s case, ultimately impacting the verdict.

PJI 2:82. Motor Vehicle Accidents-Rear End Collisions – Negligence

[Contd.] AB claims [state plaintiff’s claim, e.g., (he, she) was stopped at a traffic light, was stopped waiting to make a left turn, was parked]. CD claims that (he, she) was unable to stop in time to avoid striking the rear of AB’s vehicle because [state CD’s claim, e.g., there was an unexpected patch of ice in the road, (his, her) brakes unexpectedly failed]. You must first decide whether or not the collision occurred as explained by CD. If you do not accept CD’s explanation, then you must find for AB. If you accept CD’s explanation, you must then decide whether CD was negligent. Negligence is the failure to use that degree of care that a reasonably prudent person would have used under the same circumstances. If you find that CD failed to use reasonable care, then you must find that (he, she) was negligent and therefore caused the collision. If you accept CD’s version of the event, and you further find that CD did use reasonable care under the circumstances, then you will find that CD was not negligent.

This standard jury instruction explains the legal framework for determining negligence in a rear-end motor accident. Negligence cases involve breaches in the applicable duty of care that all drivers owe one another while traversing New York’s roads:

This duty of care is breached through an act or omission, for example, by failing to maintain a safe following distance, driving at excessive speeds, or disregarding traffic signals, inclement weather, and substandard road conditions. The presumption of negligence (which is “rebuttable”) against the rear-end driver exists because these accidents are nearly always caused by the failure to exercise the specified duties.

A rear-end collision creates a prima facie case of negligence against the driver of the striking vehicle unless they can provide an adequate, non-negligent explanation for the collision. The jury may accept or reject such explanation:

• If the jury accepts the defendant’s explanation, then they must find that the defendant was not negligent as the rear-end wreck was proved to have happened because of certain circumstances beyond the defendant’s control
• If the jury rejects the defendant’s explanation, then they must find the defendant negligent

In other words, if the driver of the rear-vehicle can sufficiently prove that a non-negligent reason caused the collision, then the court may deny a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. A sudden stop of the lead vehicle – by itself – is not a sufficient non-negligent explanation to rebut the presumption of negligence against the defendant.

Establishing Negligence in Rear-End Car Accident Cases

A driver who crashes into another driver from behind is presumed to be negligent. PJIs for rear-end collisions allow jurors to consider whether there may be other, non-negligent explanations for why the collision occurred. Some examples are the front driver’s sudden stop, the unexpected failure of the rear-end driver’s brakes, external factors that are not within the rear-end driver’s control (like patches of ice), and more.

A personal injury plaintiff’s lawyer in a rear-end collision claim would argue that their client was injured because a defendant driver crashed their vehicle into the plaintiff-client’s vehicle from behind. The defendant has the right to rebut the presumption of negligence by presenting evidence that the collision happened due to a non-negligent reason. For instance, the defendant can rebut this presumption using the exceptions under NY PJI 2:82, one example being the inability to maintain a safe distance due to unanticipated icy road conditions (see Gamblin vs. Nam).

The following non-negligent explanations for rear-end collisions have been addressed in court rulings:

Unavoidable Road Conditions or Hazards: The presence of ice, snow, fog, and heavy rainfall could cause a rear-end accident. This is especially the case when such weather events appear with little or no warning. These unreliable road conditions impair visibility and reduce driver reaction times.

Mechanical Failure of the Vehicle: Drivers typically cannot avoid sudden failure in the vehicle’s brakes, tires (e.g. a blowout), and other critical mechanical systems. However, this consideration could change if there is evidence that the defendant-driver was aware of the problem but failed to remedy it, ultimately leading to a rear-end accident.

Other Emergencies: Traffic is unpredictable, so any number of other emergencies could arise that impede the driver’s ability to maneuver safely. A pedestrian suddenly darting into the street, an animal on the road, or the occurrence of another accident are some examples that can negate or mitigate a defendant-driver’s liability.

Plaintiff’s Fault: If the plaintiff suddenly stops their vehicle, whether for good cause or not, this increases the risk of a rear-end collision. A common example of this is the practice of brake-checking in which the driver ahead deliberately hits the brakes to cause the rear-end driver to collide with them. The sudden stop generally must not have been foreseeable for this to apply.

There may be other non-negligent explanations for the rear-end accident, depending on the specific fact pattern of the case.

What Does Not Constitute a Non-Negligent Explanation?

A jury will rule in favor of the hurt plaintiff when the defendant’s explanation is insufficient to constitute a “non-negligent” explanation. Situations which would not constitute a non-negligent explanation for a rear-end accident include:

Traffic stopped around a bend: When traffic is stopped around a bend in the road, an approaching driver is expected to anticipate it and would do so if they were driving with caution. The inability to see the traffic due to the curve does not, by itself, constitute a sudden and unanticipated emergency.

Stopping to avoid a vehicle entering the road: Consider Forget v Smith in which a vehicle suddenly pulled onto the road and the lead driver abruptly stopped to avoid a collision; here, the rear-end driver was unable to rebut the presumption that the lead driver was not negligent.

Stopped vehicle fails to use directional signal: The failure of a stopped vehicle’s driver to use a directional signal might be insufficient to rebut the inference of negligence on the part of the rear-end driver. The reason why the driver was stopped was found to be irrelevant in the case of Appollonia v Bonse.

PJI 2:77: When a Rear-end Collision Does Not Implicate a Presumption of Negligence

Gamblin is also a relevant precedent to understand how the presumption of negligence works in a rear-end collision lawsuit. In this case, the plaintiff’s daughter was driving with the plaintiff as the passenger. As the vehicle entered an expressway ramp, it hit a patch of ice and slid into a ditch. The defendant driver did the same thing a few minutes later and struck the plaintiff’s vehicle from behind. However, the defendant was unaware that the plaintiff’s vehicle was in the ditch. The court found that the defendant did not have an opportunity to keep a safe distance from the plaintiff’s vehicle, meaning therefore that the facts would not implicate the typical presumption of negligence that applies to other rear-end accidents.

Difference Between Rear-end Collisions and Tailgating-related Accidents

The charge must clearly establish how tailgating accidents are different from rear-end collisions. Typically, tailgating accidents occur when the defendant-driver drives too closely to the vehicle ahead. The specific offense of tailgating does not require the occurrence of a rear-end collision.

A rear-end collision, on the other hand, refers to the outcome of a driving situation when a rear vehicle strikes the back of the vehicle ahead of it. PJIs must clarify these essential distinctions.

PJI 2:36. Comparative Fault In Rear-End Lawsuits

The instructions note that there are cases in which the defendant’s fault is established prior to trial. If so, the above instructions can be modified accordingly. If this scenario applies, however, then the plaintiff can still be found at fault but the percentage will not be 100%, since that would negate any fault that must be apportioned to the defendant.

The charge also notes that the defendant bears the burden of both proving that the plaintiff bore some degree of fault and that the fault was a substantial factor in causing the accident or injury. It further stipulates that:

The above charge applies if there is credible evidence produced by the defendant that the plaintiff was partially at fault and the fault contributed to the accident or injury. If this is the case, then the percentage of fault for both the plaintiff and the defendant must be determined, and the plaintiff’s damages must be adjusted accordingly. For instance, if the plaintiff is found to have been 20% liable for the accident or injury, and would have received $100,000 in damages, that award will be reduced by 20% ($20,000), netting the plaintiff only $80,000.

Challenges Trial Attorneys Face With Rear-end Collision PJIs

Applying PJIs requires meticulous attention to mitigate the complexities posed by the unique facts of the case. Nevertheless, challenges often arise, with plaintiffs and their attorneys facing such issues as:

• Factual variations that complicate instructions: New York City rear-end collisions, while seemingly straightforward, come with their own peculiarities. For instance, a jury reading the instruction might still find it challenging to understand whether say, a variation in road conditions or vehicle malfunctions, significantly influenced the circumstances, leading to the accident.
• Issues concerning the lead vehicle’s sudden stop: The vehicle in the front may suddenly stop because of prevailing traffic conditions. The question then becomes, as a matter of fact, whether this abrupt stop should have been foreseeable to the driver from behind. Without extensive preparation and experience, it is difficult to establish liability due to a sudden stop.
• Multi-vehicle accidents: Multi-vehicle accidents involve chain reactions that ultimately lead to a rear-end collision. However, a jury must decide whether the final vehicle that struck the front vehicle from behind was negligent (see Burg vs. Mosey). The NY PJIs permit a non-negligent explanation if that vehicle was itself rear-ended and was then propelled into the front vehicle.
• Modifications to standard PJIs: Certain special circumstances may allow for modifications to the standard jury instructions. For example, an attorney may object to a specific set of instructions to be given to the jury and have that objection overruled. They may then wish to modify the instructions, which will require considering the reasons the judge overruled the objection. The other attorney will then be compelled to develop a response to this modification request in short order.
• Whether third-party negligence was a substantive causative factor: Not all rear-end collisions involve only a plaintiff driver and a defendant driver. Sometimes third parties are intricately involved. Consider the apportionment of fault that the jury found in Tutrani vs. Suffolk. Here, the jury determined that a police officer’s negligence contributed to the rear-end collision. Factual scenarios like these could require adjustments to the PJIs.
• Whether comparative fault should be considered: PJI 2:82 directs attorneys, as the facts dictate, to charge the jury pursuant to PJI 2:36, comparative fault. Comparative fault arises in situations in which the plaintiff was somehow negligent in causing their own accident. If so, the plaintiff’s damages will need to be reduced accordingly by whatever percentage of fault is apportioned to them.

Why Should I Partner With Voldz Law For Rear-end Collision Lawsuits?

Personal injury victims need committed and seasoned legal counsel to make their strongest case in court. That includes having a thorough understanding of PJIs and their bearing on the matter. Voldz Law takes a comprehensive approach to representing personal injury victims by ensuring that each crucial phase of litigation is met with the preparation and advocacy that clients deserve.

Have Questions About Rear-End Collision PJIs? Connect With Gennady Voldz

PJIs must be narrowly tailored to fit the specific fact pattern of each individual rear-end collision case. At Voldz Law, we always strategize to protect our client’s interest in the process by preserving all possible avenues of appealing a potential adverse verdict. This ultimately ensures fairness to the client, and it is why car wreck attorneys in New York City trust Voldz Law to deliver the results their clients deserve.

Are you ready to partner with a trusted trial law firm that is adept at the implementation of PJIs, consistently shrewd and adaptable to changing circumstances, and steadfastly committed to securing your clients’ appellate rights? Connect with Voldz Law today.