In Pitt v. Rosenblatt, 2026 NY Slip Op 05200 (2d Dept. Sept. 2, 2026), the Appellate Division, Second Department addressed liability in a rear-end collision where the defendant claimed that a sudden medical emergency caused the accident.

The plaintiff was injured when a truck struck the rear of his stopped vehicle. At trial, the defendants’ only non-negligent explanation for the accident was that the truck driver suffered a seizure immediately before the collision.

The jury rejected the claim that the driver experienced a sudden, unforeseen medical emergency, but nevertheless found that the driver was not negligent.

The Second Department held that these findings were irreconcilably inconsistent. The Court reiterated that a rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence against the rear driver, requiring a non-negligent explanation for the collision. Because the jury rejected the defendants’ only such explanation—the alleged medical emergency—the verdict could not stand.

Importantly, although the plaintiff did not object to the inconsistent verdict before the jury was discharged, the Court explained that while this failed to preserve the inconsistency as an issue of law, “there is no preservation requirement for weight of the evidence review.” The Court therefore considered the plaintiff’s challenge under that standard.

The Second Department set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence and ordered a new trial on liability.

The decision is a useful reminder not only of the principles governing rear-end collisions and the sudden medical emergency defense, but also of the distinction between an unpreserved challenge to an inconsistent verdict as a matter of law and a challenge to the verdict as against the weight of the evidence.

Salvatore R. Marino, Esq.