Opinion
14938/06.
Decided June 13, 2008.
Counsel for Plaintiff: Stephen Arfine, Esq.
Counsel for Defendants: Andrew Charkow, Esq.
The cause of action arises out of personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff on September 2, 2005, when she fell while disembarking a Metro North train at the Woodbine Yard after she was left on the train following its final passenger stop in Spring Valley, New York.
Plaintiff asserts that she is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law and refers to her deposition as well as that of two conductors, Carlos Vidal and Joseph Reilly, in support of her motion. Plaintiff argues that defendant New Jersey Transit breached its duty to provide the plaintiff, a paying passenger, a reasonable opportunity to alight the train. Plaintiff testified at her deposition that she and her thirteen year-old granddaughter boarded a New Jersey Transit Train at the Secaucus Junction station with a destination of Spring Valley, New York on the Pascack Valley line. When the train approached its final stop at the Spring Valley station, plaintiff and her granddaughter gathered their belongings, stood up in the aisle and waited behind a group of passengers to exit the train. However, plaintiff alleges that the doors closed when she and her granddaughter reached them.
Plaintiff then testified that the train continued towards the Woodbine Yard with her and her granddaughter still aboard even though she unsuccessfully attempted to attract the conductor's attention. Once the train reached the Woodbine Yard, plaintiff opened the door leading to the engine and screamed out to the engineer. Plaintiff asserts that no one at the yard provided the plaintiff and her granddaughter with mobile stairs or other devices and she was required to step down approximately three feet to the ground to disembark from the train which caused her to break her leg.
Plaintiff argues that the conductors on the train did not exercise reasonable care in discharging their duties as they failed to be certain that passengers were clear of the train before departing the station and they failed to check the train before closing the doors and proceeding to Woodbine Yard. Plaintiff asserts that defendant New Jersey transit admits that its own regulations were violated and that one of the conductors, Joseph Reilly, was charged with and admitted to violating certain regulations. Plaintiff then refers to the deposition testimony of Richard Mackey, and engine preparer for New Jersey Transit, wherein he testified that passengers have been left on the train on many prior occasions. Plaintiff argues that his testimony coupled with Reilly's admission to charges of violating New Jersey Transit regulations, conclusively show that defendants breached the duty of care owed to the plaintiff as its passenger.
Moreover, plaintiff argues that New Jersey Transit breached its duty to provide a reasonably safe place to disembark the train in that plaintiff was directed to step off the train approximately three feet to a paved surface at Woodbine Yard and said distance is not the standard height from a coach to a platform. Accordingly, plaintiff argues that there are no material issues of fact to preclude plaintiff's entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
Defendants oppose the motion and argue that there are material issues of fact as to whether or not defendants breached the duty owed to plaintiff. Defendants refer to that portion of the deposition testimony of its conductor, Joseph Reilly, wherein he asserted that when the train pulled into the Spring Valley station, he stepped off the train and onto the platform to observe the passengers disembarking. Once it appeared that all of the passengers had disembarked, he stepped back onto the train and look through the passenger cars to confirm that no passengers remained. Moreover, conductor Carlos Vidal testified that he also looked through the train to confirm that no passengers remained before leaving the Spring Valley station. Defendants also maintain that the train was at the Spring Valley station for three to five minutes before it proceeded to the Woodbine Yard.
Defendants next assert that once the engineer noticed the plaintiff with her granddaughter on the train, he asked her if she would rather detrain onto gravel or asphalt, to which she replied, "I'm such a klutz. Let's go for the asphalt." (Plaintiff's Exhibit E, p. 55). In addition, when she was about to disembark, the engineer stated to the plaintiff, "Let me help you" and plaintiff replied, "No. I'm really nervous and a klutz. Let me go down myself." (Plaintiff's Exhibit E, p. 56). It was at that point that plaintiff, while holding two bags, proceeded to go down the stairs of the train toward the paved surface and fell and broke her leg. Defendant submits an affidavit from Dennis Castiglione, a claims agent for Metro North, who states that handrails were located on both sides of the interior and exterior of the steps and there were multiple warning signs for individuals to "Watch [Their] Step." (Affidavit, para. 8). In addition, plaintiff herself testified that there were handrails on the side of the staircase.
Defendants do not contest that they owed plaintiff a duty of providing a reasonably safe place to alight the train. However, they argue that issues of fact remain as to whether they breached their duty. Plaintiff was afforded the opportunity to exit the train on a paved surface with the assistance of handrails, she refused the offer of assistance and chose to exit herself while holding two bags. Moreover, defendants argue that it was plaintiff who failed to exit the train at the Spring Valley station in the three to five minutes it was there. Defendants contend that the mere fact that plaintiff and her granddaughter were taken one mile beyond their intended stop does not establish that defendants failed to provide plaintiff with a reasonably safe place to exit the train. Furthermore, the fact that Richard Mackey testified that passengers had been left on the trains beyond their stops in the past and the fact that Joseph Reilly admitted to charges of violating a company regulation, are irrelevant to the determination of whether defendants breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff. Accordingly, they request that summary judgment be denied.
Summary judgment is a drastic remedy and should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue. Rotuba Extruders v. Ceppos , 46 NY2d 223 (1978). "To obtain summary judgment it is necessary that the movant establish his cause of action or defense sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment' in his favor...and he must do so by tender of evidentiary proof in admissible form." Friends of Animals, Inc. v. Associated Fur Manuf., Inc. , 46 NY2d 1065 (1979). The court's function on a motion for summary judgment is issue finding rather than issue determination. Sillman v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. , 3 NY2d 395 (1957). Once the movant has made this showing, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion "to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action." Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital , 68 NY2d 320 (1986).
This court finds that pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 3212, plaintiff has not demonstrated her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. There are issues of fact remaining as to the defendants' alleged negligence such as whether or not defendants provided the plaintiff with a reasonable opportunity to alight from the train at the Spring Valley station and later provided the plaintiff a reasonably safe location at which to alight from the train, in light of plaintiff's own actions.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.