CG&P obtained summary judgment in favor of its client, a Church volunteer driving a Church van, who was injured when another vehicle rear-ended the van. The rear-ending driver asserted a counterclaim against CG&P’s client for contribution. The Court agreed with CG&P’s arguments that the counterclaim should be dismissed as a rear-end collision establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the driver of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring the rear-ending driver to provide a non-negligent explanation for the collision, and that the driver of the rear vehicle in this case failed to do so. The Court also agreed with CG&P’s assertion that the motion was not premature even though depositions had not yet taken place as motions for summary judgment should not be denied based on a mere hope or speculation that discovery may uncover additional evidence. The case was handled by CG&P Partner, Christopher Rogers.