Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Motor Vehicle Collision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge finds genuine dispute in rideshare rear‑end case; summary judgment denied
Summary
A defendant driving for Lyft sought summary judgment after a highway collision; the judge found genuine disputes about braking timing and denied the motion, keeping the case for trial.
A Clayton County judge denied a motion for summary judgment Oct. 1 in a collision case where a rideshare driver, Dante (Dondre) Taylor, said he slowed to avoid debris and was struck from behind.
Defense counsel Kyle Waddell argued dash‑cam and in‑vehicle camera footage show Taylor slowed appropriately and that the rear driver, co‑defendant Zara Anderson, admitted she could have avoided the collision. Waddell said the videos demonstrate Taylor did what he could to avoid the crash and that no reasonable jury could find proximate cause attributable to him.
Plaintiff counsel Jim Rice and a co‑counsel argued the record contains testimony and affidavit evidence creating a factual dispute. Rice pointed to deposition testimony in which Taylor said 4–5 seconds elapsed between seeing brake lights and applying his brakes; plaintiff’s affidavits and still frames, the lawyer said, show a pattern in which Taylor’s braking contributed to the crash and that Anderson was following too closely.
The judge agreed a genuine issue of material fact exists about when Taylor applied his brakes and about proximate causation and denied the motion. The court said the parties could present the video, deposition testimony and affidavit evidence to a jury.
Both sides had argued proximate cause and braking timing; the court declined to resolve those credibility and timing questions on summary judgment.
