The defendant driver brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligence claim against him arising from a severe winter motor vehicle collision.
The plaintiffs' vehicle lost control and crossed into the defendant's lane, resulting in a head-on collision.
The motion relied on eyewitness accounts and an expert report suggesting the defendant had no time to react.
The plaintiffs relied on competing expert engineering evidence suggesting the defendant had sufficient time to perceive the hazard and take evasive action.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting expert opinions on perception, response time, and evasive maneuvers created a genuine issue requiring a trial.