What is a non-negligent explanation when you rear-end somebody?

Rear-end collisions are among the most common types of motor vehicle accidents on New York roads. When you’re the driver who strikes the vehicle in front of you, the law creates what’s called a “presumption of negligence” — meaning you’re assumed to be at fault unless you can prove otherwise. This presumption exists because drivers have a fundamental duty to maintain a safe following distance and control their vehicle.

However, the legal system recognizes that not every rear-end collision results from driver negligence. Sometimes mechanical failures, weather conditions, or the unexpected actions of other drivers create unavoidable situations. Understanding what constitutes a valid “non-negligent explanation” is crucial for drivers facing liability in these cases, as it can mean the difference between being held responsible for damages and successfully defending against New York no-fault insurance claims.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

So you rear-end somebody in an MVA. Many of us have done it or will do it. Consider it the law of averages. You now are the defendant in a lawsuit, and have been told that the act of rear ending another vehicle raises an inference of negligence, and that you must provide a “non-negligent” explanation for what happened. What is a non-negligent explanation?

Napolitano v Galletta ,2011 NY Slip Op 05243 (2d Dept. 2011)

The Second Department has somewhat answered that question. “A non-negligent explanation may include evidence of a mechanical failure, a sudden stop of the vehicle ahead, an unavoidable skidding on wet pavement, or any other reasonable cause”

Key Takeaway

The Napolitano v Galletta decision provides important guidance for rear-end collision defenses in New York. Mechanical failures, sudden stops by the lead vehicle, unavoidable skidding on wet pavement, and other reasonable causes can serve as valid non-negligent explanations. The key is providing concrete evidence that the collision resulted from circumstances beyond your reasonable control, rather than inattentive or careless driving.

Related Articles

• New York No-Fault Insurance Law
• Understanding CPLR 3212(a): Critical Timing Rules for Summary Judgment Motions in New York
• The CPLR 3212(g) paradigm
• Reasonable excuse satisfied despite claim of lack of personal jurisdiction
• No-Fault Verification Requirements: When Partial Compliance Isn’t Enough

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2011 analysis, New York’s Vehicle and Traffic Law provisions regarding following distance and rear-end collision liability may have been subject to regulatory updates, and court interpretations of “non-negligent explanations” in rear-end cases have continued to evolve through subsequent appellate decisions. Additionally, no-fault insurance regulations and fee schedules have undergone multiple revisions that may affect claim procedures and coverage determinations. Practitioners should verify current statutory provisions and recent case law developments when advising clients on rear-end collision liability and available defenses.