CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haust v. United States

Plaintiff Daniel J. Haust filed an action against the United States of America under the Federal Torts Claims Act, seeking compensatory damages for injuries from a 2008 motor vehicle accident. Haust's truck collided with a U.S. Postal Service vehicle operated by employee Angel Warner. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing Warner's conduct did not meet the "reckless disregard" standard for hazard vehicles, Haust was presumptively negligent in a rear-end collision, and his self-serving testimony was insufficient. The court denied the motion, finding triable issues of fact concerning Warner's precautions, the accident's location, and whether it was a sideswipe or a rear-end collision, which preclude summary judgment.

Motor Vehicle AccidentFederal Torts Claims ActSummary Judgment MotionReckless Disregard StandardNegligence ClaimRear-End CollisionSideswipe AccidentRural Mail CarrierHazard Vehicle ExceptionFactual Disputes
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2002

Jaycox v. Hardesty

Plaintiff Newton S. Jaycox rear-ended a stopped garbage truck operated by defendant Robert L. Hardesty and owned by Hardesty & Sons Sanitation, Inc. Plaintiff, along with his wife derivatively, commenced an action seeking damages for sustained injuries. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff's own negligence caused the collision. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's order, stating that the plaintiffs failed to provide a non-negligent explanation for the rear-end collision, as plaintiff admitted to looking in his side-view mirror instead of at the road prior to impact. The court also found the defendants' assertions regarding the truck's illuminated lights to be credible.

auto accidentrear-end collisionsummary judgmentnegligenceVehicle and Traffic Lawappellate reviewdriver dutycontributory negligencevisibilityfactual dispute
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2006

Owsian v. Cobo

This case involves an appeal concerning a personal injury action stemming from a rear-end collision in a construction zone. Plaintiff Richard B. Owsian, Jr. was a passenger in a vehicle that stopped to avoid colliding with a third vehicle, operated by Michael J. Fricano, which had stopped abruptly. Their vehicle was then rear-ended by a truck operated by Daniel D. Cobo, an employee of Boehmer Transportation Corp. The Supreme Court's initial ruling denied summary judgment for Fricano and the Simoncelli defendants, while granting partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs against the Boehmer defendants. The appellate court modified this order, reversing the grant of partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs against the Boehmer defendants, acknowledging the Boehmer defendants' non-negligent explanation for the collision, and affirmed the order as modified.

Personal InjuryVehicular AccidentRear-end CollisionSummary JudgmentNegligenceThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewConstruction Zone AccidentsVehicle and Traffic LawErie County
References
3
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04028 [139 AD3d 1018]
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2016

Melendez v. McCrowell

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, in a personal injury action arising from a rear-end motor vehicle collision. Plaintiffs Michael Melendez and his wife sued Patrick McCrowell and Marten Transport, Ltd., after Melendez was struck while driving his employer's pickup truck. The Supreme Court had denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, which was based on a collateral estoppel argument citing a Workers' Compensation Board finding of no serious injury. The Supreme Court also granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on liability. The Appellate Division found the defendants failed to demonstrate that the issue of serious injury, particularly regarding a traumatic brain injury, was identical to what was decided by the Workers' Compensation Board, thus collateral estoppel did not apply. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of negligence for the rear-end collision, which the defendants failed to rebut with a nonnegligent explanation.

Personal InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentRear-end CollisionSummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelWorkers' Compensation BoardSerious InjuryTraumatic Brain InjuryAppellate ReviewNegligence
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2000

Torres v. WABC Towing Corp.

Plaintiff, a road construction worker, was allegedly injured when his truck was rear-ended by defendants' tow truck. The plaintiff had stopped his vehicle for approximately 30 seconds to allow a helper to remove warning cones from the roadway. Although a rear-end collision typically creates a prima facie case of negligence, the defendant driver provided testimony that attributed the collision to causes other than his negligence, stating he observed the plaintiff's stopped truck on a downhill curve, attempted to change lanes without success, and skidded on wet pavement after braking. The trial court's decision to refuse the plaintiff's request for a jury charge on Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 (a) (following too closely) was upheld due to a lack of evidence that the accident resulted from tailgating. Additionally, the court did not err in instructing the jury on 49 CFR 392.22 and 393.95 concerning comparative negligence, as these regulations did not introduce new factual allegations or theories of liability despite their omission from the defendants' bill of particulars. The appellate court found no adequate justification to consider the plaintiff's remaining unpreserved complaints and affirmed the judgment.

Rear-end collisionNegligenceJury verdictAffirmed judgmentTraffic LawComparative negligenceWet pavementBrakingSkiddingRoad construction worker
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

White v. Diaz

This case addresses the complex issue of proximate cause in a car accident. Plaintiff, a passenger, was injured when an Access-a-Ride van, double-parked on a busy Manhattan street, was rear-ended by another van whose driver had fallen asleep. Defendants Nunez and Atlantic Paratransit, the Access-a-Ride driver and owner, sought summary judgment, arguing their double-parking merely furnished the condition for the accident. The court, citing various precedents on intervening causation and foreseeability, determined that a reasonable jury could find a rear-end collision a foreseeable consequence of double-parking in such circumstances. Therefore, a triable issue of fact exists regarding proximate causation. The court affirmed the lower court's denial of summary judgment for the Nunez defendants, also noting an unresolved dispute about the plaintiff's seatbelt as further grounds for denial.

Proximate CauseNegligenceCar AccidentDouble ParkingIntervening CauseForeseeabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTraffic RegulationsRear-end Collision
References
13
Case No. W2001-00745-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2001

Jessie Anthony v. Melbourne Holland

Jessie Lee Anthony appealed a trial court judgment that found the defendant's negligence was not the proximate cause of his injuries. Mr. Anthony sustained a herniated disc after a rear-end collision with Melbourne C. Holland. While Mr. Holland admitted liability for the collision, he contested that it caused Mr. Anthony's specific back injury, citing prior back issues. The trial court determined Mr. Anthony failed to prove causation by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's findings, concluding that medical expert testimony only suggested a possibility, not a probability, that the collision caused the herniated disc.

NegligenceAutomobile AccidentRear-end CollisionCausationPreponderance of EvidenceHerniated DiscMedical Expert TestimonyBiomechanical AnalysisAppellate ReviewBack Injury
References
7
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 02083 [148 AD3d 1084]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2017

Tumminello v. City of New York

Plaintiffs Anthony Tumminello and his wife initiated an action against the City of New York for personal injuries sustained in a rear-end collision involving a Department of Sanitation truck. The Supreme Court, Queens County, initially denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiffs had successfully established prima facie negligence on the part of the City's employee and the absence of comparative fault. The court determined that the defendant failed to offer a non-negligent explanation for the collision, despite arguments regarding a sudden stop or wet road conditions, thereby granting the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability.

Personal InjuryRear-end CollisionSummary JudgmentNegligenceComparative FaultTraffic AccidentAppellate ReviewMunicipal LiabilityDepartment of SanitationWet Road Conditions
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clemente v. Blumenberg

In this case, plaintiff Deborah Clemente, injured in a rear-end collision, alleged a herniated disk, supported by her treating neurologist and MRI. Defendant Ernest J. Blumenberg sought to introduce a biomedical engineer, M. Kenneth Salzer, as an expert to argue the low-impact collision could not cause such injuries. The court conducted a Frye hearing to assess the engineer's methodology, which relied on repair costs and photographs to calculate vehicle velocity change. Finding this methodology unscientific, untested, and not generally accepted, the court precluded Salzer's testimony. The judge emphasized the gatekeeping role to exclude unreliable scientific and technical evidence under both Frye and Daubert/Kumho standards, noting the engineer lacked medical qualifications for injury causation opinions.

Expert TestimonyBiomedical EngineeringBiomechanicsFrye HearingDaubert StandardKumho Tire StandardAdmissibility of EvidenceScientific EvidenceLow-Impact CollisionPersonal Injury
References
10
Case No. M2003-00292-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2004

Dominic Pellicano v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County

Dominic P. Pellicano, who had a pre-existing herniated disk, was involved in a rear-end collision with a Metropolitan Government ambulance seven weeks after an initial work injury. Following the collision, Pellicano underwent a diskectomy, and the trial court attributed the surgery and associated damages entirely to the ambulance incident. However, the treating physician offered equivocal testimony regarding the causation of the surgery, stating "maybe yes; maybe no." The Court of Appeals reversed, modified, and remanded, concluding that lay testimony was insufficient to establish a cause-in-fact relationship between the incident and the need for surgery. While acknowledging that the incident exacerbated Pellicano's pre-existing injury, the appellate court reduced the damages award and remanded for a redetermination of pain and suffering attributable to the exacerbation.

Personal InjuryVehicular AccidentHerniated DiscCausation in FactMedical CausationExpert TestimonyLay TestimonyPre-existing ConditionAggravation of InjuryDiskectomy
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 604 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational