Summary judgment granted as to negligence yet “sole proximate cause” and comparative negligence left as open questions

Summary judgment motions in motor vehicle accident cases often present strategic opportunities to resolve specific liability questions while leaving others for trial. This approach allows courts to efficiently address clear-cut legal issues while preserving more complex factual determinations for a jury. The Fourth Department’s decision in Potter v Stevens Van Lines illustrates this principle perfectly, showing how even straightforward rear-end collision scenarios can involve nuanced questions of causation and comparative fault.

The case also highlights the tactical considerations attorneys must weigh when crafting summary judgment motions. Rather than seeking an all-or-nothing resolution, practitioners can strategically target specific elements of a claim where the evidence strongly favors their position. This approach is particularly valuable in New York no-fault insurance cases where establishing clear liability can streamline subsequent proceedings.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Potter v Stevens Van Lines, Inc., 2013 NY Slip Op 06474 (4th Dept. 2013)

“Plaintiff commenced this negligence action seeking damages for injuries he sustained in a motor vehicle accident. It is undisputed that plaintiff’s vehicle collided with a vehicle operated by David J. Fisk (defendant) and owned by defendant Stevens Van Lines, Inc. when plaintiff swerved to avoid Fisk’s vehicle that was entering the roadway from a driveway. ”

(1) Summary judgment granted on the issue of Defendant’s negligence, i.e., improperly backing out of the driveway

(2) Summary judgment denied as to whether Defendant’s negligence was sole proximate cause of accident.

Seems interesting the micro issues in the grander scheme of a negligence case that can be culled into a summary judgment motion. An inchoate siting of 3212(g)?

Key Takeaway

This decision demonstrates the strategic value of partial summary judgment motions in personal injury cases. While the court readily found the defendant negligent for improper backing, it preserved questions of sole proximate cause and comparative negligence for trial, showing how complex liability cases can be efficiently divided into discrete legal issues.

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 post, New York’s summary judgment standards and procedures for motor vehicle accident cases may have evolved through court decisions and rule amendments. Additionally, the interplay between no-fault insurance thresholds and comparative negligence determinations has been subject to regulatory and judicial refinements. Practitioners should verify current Civil Practice Law and Rules provisions and recent appellate decisions when developing summary judgment strategies in motor vehicle negligence cases.