Ebarb v. Matlock, 69 So. 3d 516

Ms. Ebarb sued Mr. Matlock and Mr. Terry for injuries from a three-car collision on December 3, 2008 in Bossier City, Louisiana.
Matlock rear-ended Terry after Terry had stopped to avoid stalled traffic; Terry then collided with Ebarb.
Matlock received a speeding/following-too-close ticket and paid the fine prior to suit.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Terry on liability, and later granted Ms. Ebarb partial summary judgment against Matlock on liability.
Matlock appeals arguing he rebutted the presumption of negligence by rear-end collisions, asserting he kept a safe distance and had the situation under control.
Court reviews the grant of summary judgment de novo under La. C.C.P. art. 966; material facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Matlock rebut the presumption of negligence for rear-ending?	Ebarb argues Matlock breached RS 32:81 by following too closely and cannot rebut the presumption.	Matlock contends his affidavit shows control, observation of lead vehicle, and safe following distance.	No; Matlock failed to rebut the presumption; summary judgment for Ebarb affirmed.
Is the sudden emergency doctrine applicable to this collision?	Ebarb contends no sudden emergency; drivers could stop safely.	Matlock argues emergency considerations could excuse conduct.	Not applicable; circumstances allowed normal standard of care and safe stopping by others.
Did Matlock provide competent evidence to overcome the presumption with his affidavit?	Ebarb asserts Matlock's affidavit is self-serving and insufficient to create material facts.	Matlock claims his statements show control and safe distance.	No; affidavit evidence insufficient to rebut presumption; admissible facts show he failed to establish trial-ready facts.

Mart v. Hill, 505 So. 2d 1120 (La. 1987) (rear-end presumption of negligence; burden to rebut)
Broussard v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 23 So. 3d 370 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2009) (duty to prove safe following distance and control)
Bennett v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 983 So. 2d 966 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2008) (lead motorist negligence; rear-end liability analysis)
Hardy v. Bowie, 744 So. 2d 606 (La. 1999) (duty-risk analysis framework; summary judgment standard)
Anderson v. May, 812 So. 2d 81 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2002) (sudden emergency doctrine restricts pre-emergency care standard)
Potts v. Hollier, 344 So. 2d 70 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1977) (emergency and foreseeability in negligence standard)
Knowles v. McCright's Pharmacy, Inc., 785 So. 2d 101 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2001) (duty, breach, and causation in duty-risk analysis)
Domingo v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 54 So. 3d 74 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2010) (precedential for comparative negligence and burden on movant)
Chambers v. Graybiel, 639 So. 2d 361 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1994) (standard of care and duty assessment in negligence)
Morris v. Flores, 840 So. 2d 1257 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2003) (safety distance and negligence considerations)