Darmento v. Pacific Molasses Co., 81 N.Y.2d 985 (1993)
A violation of New York’s tailgating statute (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129(a)) does not require a rear-end collision to establish negligence; the statute aims to prevent accidents caused by following too closely, regardless of the specific type of collision.
Summary
Anthony and Matilda Darmento sued Pacific Molasses Co. for injuries sustained when their car, allegedly disconcerted by a tractor-trailer following too closely on an icy road, skidded, hit a guardrail, and then collided with the tractor-trailer. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, arguing the accident was solely due to the driver’s loss of control. The Appellate Division reversed. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s reversal, holding that triable issues of fact existed as to whether the truck driver’s actions were unreasonable and a proximate cause of the accident, clarifying that a rear-end collision is not required for a violation of the tailgating statute to be considered negligence.
Facts
Plaintiffs Anthony and Matilda Darmento were driving on State Route 13 in icy and snowy conditions.
Defendant Walter Finlay was driving a 31-ton tractor-trailer owned by defendant Pacific Molasses Co. behind the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs alleged Finlay was following too closely at an excessive speed and without proper control.
Anthony Darmento felt “disconcerted” by the tractor-trailer following too closely, causing him to lose control of his vehicle.
The plaintiffs’ car skidded into a guardrail, then back into traffic, where it collided with the defendants’ tractor-trailer.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding the accident was solely caused by the plaintiff driver’s loss of control.
The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s decision, finding triable issues of fact regarding the truck driver’s negligence.
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s reversal.
Issue(s)
Whether a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129(a) requires a rear-end collision to establish negligence based on following too closely.
Whether there were triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant’s actions were a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s loss of control of his vehicle.
Holding
No, because Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129(a) prohibits following another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, regardless of whether a rear-end collision occurs. The statute’s plain language does not mandate a specific type of collision for a violation to exist.
Yes, because there were questions of fact as to whether the defendant’s driving was unreasonable under the circumstances and, if so, whether that unreasonableness proximately caused the plaintiff’s loss of control.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals focused on the plain language of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129(a), which states that a driver