In Tutrani v. County of Suffolk (10 NY3d 906 [2008]) a police officer driving during rush-hour traffic in the middle lane of a three-lane highway abruptly decelerated from 40 miles to 1 or 2 miles per hour while chang-ing lanes. The plaintiff slammed on her brakes and was able to avoid striking the police officer's vehicle, but the plaintiff's vehicle was then rear-ended by another vehicle. At trial, a jury found that the police officer and the driver of the offending vehicle were each a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries and apportioned fault at 50% each. The Appellate Division, Second Department reversed, ruling that the police officer's conduct was not a proximate cause of the accident because the plaintiff did not strike the police officer's vehicle. The Court of Appeals reversed, stating: "It is well settled that a 'rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the driver of the rear vehicle.' However, Maldonado's negligence in rear-ending plaintiff's stopped vehicle does not absolve Officer Weidl of liability as a matter of law. Clearly, Officer Weidl's actions created a foreseeable danger that vehicles would have to brake aggressively in an effort to avoid the lane obstruction created by his vehicle, thereby increasing the risk of rear-end collisions. That a negligent driver may be unable to stop his or her vehicle in time to avoid a collision with a stopped vehicle is 'a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by' Officer Weidl's actions." (Tutrani, 10 NY3d at 908.) The Court of Appeals ruled that the police officer's operation of his vehicle was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries, and reinstated the jury's verdict as to the police officer, which implies that such conduct was also negligent. Tutrani also involved two sudden stops--the abrupt deceleration of the police officer's vehicle, and the plain-tiff's sudden braking to avoid collision with the police officer's vehicle. Tutrani did not hold that the plaintiff's sudden stop rebutted the presumption of negligence of the driver who rear-ended the plaintiff's vehicle. The Court of Appeals neither addressed nor set aside the jury's finding of fault of the driver who rear-ended the plaintiff's vehicle in Tutrani. Indeed, the Court of Appeals referred to the driver who rear-ended the plaintiff's vehicle as "the negligent driver." (Tutrani at 908.) Moreover, in Tutrani, the police officer's vehicle was traveling in the middle lane of a highway at 40 miles per hour and abruptly decelerated. In Tutrani v County of Suffolk the front vehicle in a rear-end collision "abruptly" decelerated, "while changing lanes" (id. at 907), creating a "lane obstruction." (Id. at 908.) While under prior authority only the "changing lanes" would have raised an issue of the front driver's fault, Tutrani does not indicate that this fact is critical to finding the front driver a contributing cause of the collision or that the "lane obstruction" must result from changing lanes rather than the abrupt deceleration.