According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was rear-ended by Defendant in the car behind the Plaintiff.
The second Defendant then came along and rear-ended the first Defendant.
The Plaintiff alleged a chain reaction and asserted that the first Defendant was caused to hit the rear of the Plaintiff’s vehicle a second time after that first Defendant was rear-ended by the second Defendant. Both Defendants were named in the lawsuit.
The second Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that the Plaintiff did not show a prima facie case of that Defendant’s negligence.
The second Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that the Plaintiff did not show a prima facie case of that Defendant’s negligence.
The second Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff admitted that he did not see the second Defendant's vehicle before the impact and that, therefore, the Plaintiff could not establish that there was a second collision with her vehicle caused by the second Defendant. That Defendant asserted that the fact that the Plaintiff allegedly “experienced” an alleged second impact was not enough.
The court denied the second Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
The court denied the second Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
In doing so, the court pointed to the Plaintiff’s statement that she felt two (2) impacts.
Moreover, the court noted that the first Defendant testified that there was no definitely no second impact caused solely by that first Defendant.
The record before the Court also showed that the second Defendant admitted that they did not know whether the collision with the first Defendant had caused the second impact with the Plaintiff's vehicle.
Finding that there were issues of fact to be decided by a jury, the judge denied the Motion for Summary Judgment.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Brandon R. Keller of the Pittsburgh law firm of Ainsman Levine, LLC for bringing this case to my attention.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Brandon R. Keller of the Pittsburgh law firm of Ainsman Levine, LLC for bringing this case to my attention.
Source of image: Photo by Burak the Weekender on www.pexels.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.