fbpx Skip to content

MOTOR VEHICLE LAW: Court denies defendant’s motion for summary judgment in vehicle rear-end collision case

Plaintiff, Hudak, filed a complaint against several defendants, alleging in one count that defendant Wilcott, suddenly and without warning, collided with the rear of the motor vehicle that the plaintiff was operating, causing the plaintiff to suffer injuries and losses. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that “there is no genuine issue in dispute as to any material fact, in that … the defendant was struck from behind while at a complete stop behind the plaintiff’s disabled vehicle at which time the defendant’s vehicle was pushed forward, striking the plaintiffs … [A]s such, the defendant did not breach any duty of care to the plaintiff.” The plaintiff argued that there is a factual dispute as to whether the defendant’s vehicle was stopped when the collision occurred and therefore summary judgment is not appropriate. The defendant submitted evidence that she was completely stopped but the plaintiff submitted evidence to the contrary. The Court finds a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the defendant was stopped and denies the motion for summary judgment. Hudak v. Meineke Car Care Centers, LLC, No. NNH-CV-21-6112190-S, 2022 WL 17592116 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 6, 2022)