Michael Shapiro of Epstein Ostrove, LLC Claws Back Expansive Application of New Jersey Railroad Immunity Act

Edison, NJ – Epstein Ostrove, LLC proudly announces that Michael C. Shapiro, Senior Associate at the firm, successfully argued on behalf of amicus curiae, the New Jersey Association for Justice, in a case before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division concerning the application of New Jersey’s Railroad Immunity Act. The court’s decision in Collins v. New Jersey Transit reversed a grant of summary judgment previously entered in favor of the railroad based on an expansive application of the Act’s immunity provisions.

The case centered on the tragic death of Shannon Flood, who was struck and killed by a New Jersey Transit light rail train while using a Jersey City pedestrian crossing while the Do Not Cross signal was active. The trial court had previously dismissed the complaint, relying on broad statutory immunity granted to railroads under N.J.S.A. 48:12-152, asserting that the crossing constituted “railroad property” and that Ms. Flood’s crossing was “use of railroad property . . . in a manner in which it was not intended to be used[.]”

On appeal, Mr. Shapiro, appearing for the New Jersey Association for Justice, presented compelling arguments clarifying the legislative intent of the statute. He argued that “railroad property” historically referred to the tangible property of the railroad, such as the “equipment, machinery, wires or rolling stock of any railroad” mentioned in one subsection, and not an amorphous concept like the crossing itself. Further, misuse of railroad property had never been so expansively defined to include crossing at a marked railroad crossing, even if untimely. That expansive view conflicts with past precedent, which recognized railroads’ duty of care toward those using a lawful crossing, and conflicts with other subsections of the statute which exempt use of railroad crossings from the Act’s immunities.

See How Epstein Ostrove, LLC Can Help You

In a detailed and thoughtful opinion, the Appellate Division agreed, concluding that: “Merely because an individual enters a crossing ‘in disregard of due care,’ a duty still rests on the railroad to use reasonable care . . . to protect travelers.”