Frederick Renz and Madeline Renz, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Penn Central Corporation, Successors in Interest to…

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the railroad immunity act, originally grounded in contributory negligence, must be read in light of the Comparative Negligence Act, so that comparative negligence, not an absolute bar, applies to plaintiffs injured while unauthorized on railroad tracks. Accordingly, the Court reversed the lower court’s dismissal and remanded for trial, directing that the jury apply comparative negligence and that the railroad bear the burden of proving the plaintiff’s fault exceeds its own. Justice Schreiber, in a concurring opinion, argued the majority correctly limited the statutory analysis to the effect of the Comparative Negligence Act without expanding beyond the statute’s language. Justice Pashman, joining the concurrence, agreed with the result.