Jazmine Wray v. Antonio Green, 126 A.3d 476

On Nov. 9, 2009, three vehicles were stopped eastbound on Hartford Avenue in Providence; Wray stopped to make a left turn, Roy stopped behind her, and Antonio Green rear-ended Roy, which pushed Roy into Wray.
Plaintiffs Jazmine Wray and Reginald Green sued Roy and Antonio Green for negligence for injuries and damages arising from the collision.
It was undisputed that Roy’s vehicle was stopped prior to being struck by Antonio Green; plaintiffs heard the first impact (Antonio into Roy) before Roy hit Wray.
Plaintiffs alleged Roy was negligent for following too closely (tailgating) in violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-15-12 and that greater spacing would have prevented the secondary impact.
Roy moved for summary judgment; the Superior Court granted summary judgment for Roy and entered final judgment under Rule 54(b); plaintiffs appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Roy breached a duty of care by following too closely such that he is negligent	Roy tailgated Wray; had he left sufficient space the force from Antonio Green would not have pushed Roy into Wray	Roy was stopped; plaintiffs produced no competent evidence of the distance between vehicles to show breach	No breach shown; summary judgment affirmed
Whether G.L. 1956 § 31-15-12 (following too closely) applies to Roy	Statute proves Roy violated duty by not leaving sufficient space	Statute applies only when "traveling" or "following," not when stopped; no evidence of spacing	Statute inapplicable because Roy was stopped; plaintiffs failed to prove statutory violation
Whether summary judgment was appropriate given negligence issues are typically for a jury	There is a factual dispute about spacing and causation warranting trial	Plaintiffs produced no competent evidence on essential element (spacing/ breach); nonmoving party bears burden to show material fact	Summary judgment appropriate where plaintiffs failed to produce evidence creating genuine issue of material fact
Whether plaintiffs proved proximate causation linking Roy’s conduct to their injuries	Roy’s tailgating was the sole reason for plaintiffs’ injuries; closer spacing caused secondary impact	Lack of evidence on spacing and that Roy breached duty means causation not established	Proximate causation not established as an essential element; judgment for Roy affirmed

Daniels v. Fluette, 64 A.3d 302 (R.I. 2013) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
Great American E & S Insurance Co. v. End Zone Pub & Grill of Narragansett, Inc., 45 A.3d 571 (R.I. 2012) (summary-judgment standards)
Holley v. Argonaut Holdings, Inc., 968 A.2d 271 (R.I. 2009) (negligence issues usually for jury)
Gliottone v. Ethier, 870 A.2d 1022 (R.I. 2005) (negligence questions and summary judgment reluctance)
Lavoie v. North East Knitting, Inc., 918 A.2d 225 (R.I. 2007) (summary judgment where essential element lacks evidence)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant entitled to judgment if nonmovant fails to show essential element)
DeBlois v. Ashcraft, 797 A.2d 1073 (R.I. 2002) (rear-end collision is prima facie evidence of negligence but not conclusive)
Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. D.F. Pepper Construction, Inc., 59 A.3d 106 (R.I. 2013) (elements of negligence)