A passenger’s lawsuit claiming negligence after slipping on pooled water inside a commuter train was dismissed after courts found insufficient evidence that the train operator or its contractor had notice of the dangerous condition. The case highlights legal standards for public entities and their contractors regarding injuries caused by hazardous conditions during severe weather events.
Lisa M. Jenkins-Miller, joined by her husband Corey Miller, filed an appeal in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, challenging a summary judgment order in favor of New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJT) and Alstom SA. The complaint was originally filed in Burlington County under Docket No. L-0980-21 following an incident on September 12, 2019.
According to court documents, Jenkins-Miller slipped and fell on water pooled on the interior exit steps of NJT’s River Line train in Camden during significant rainfall. She alleged serious injuries to her ankle and leg as a result of the fall, which occurred at approximately 5:45 p.m. while she was exiting the train after work. Jenkins-Miller described encountering “a lot of dirty water” that soaked her clothes and hands, stating she could not see the floor before standing up to leave her seat.
The suit named NJT as well as Alstom SA, which served as operations and maintenance contractor for NJT, as defendants. Hallcon Corporation, initially included as a cleaning subcontractor defendant, was voluntarily dismissed from the case prior to summary judgment motions.
Plaintiff argued that both NJT and Alstom were negligent for failing to address hazards posed by pooling water during heavy rainstorms. She pointed to video surveillance showing visible pooling at the location where she fell and cited daily log entries indicating a system alert for “high water” earlier that evening when service had been temporarily suspended due to flooding conditions.
The record showed that interior cleanings of trains were scheduled once per day at end-of-service or during layovers in servicing yards—not during active operation—and no cleaning staff were available between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., covering the time frame when Jenkins-Miller’s accident occurred. Plaintiffs argued there were no procedures for responsive in-service cleaning or hazard mitigation during weather events beyond undocumented visual inspections performed by engineers at terminal stops.
After discovery concluded, NJT and Alstom moved for summary judgment on grounds that plaintiffs failed to show either defendant had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition required under both common law negligence standards and provisions of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act (TCA). Oral argument took place in May 2024; on November 18, 2024, the trial court granted summary judgment for both defendants with prejudice.
The trial court held there was “no evidence in the record that either [NJT] or Alstom had actual notice of any dangerous condition on the train” nor proof “that defendants had constructive notice of a dangerous condition in the form of water on the train floor.” The judge reasoned further: “there was no proof in the record…that water had been present for such a period of time to have allowed for its discovery by Alstom or NJT…There was also no evidence concerning the source of the water, or of any River Line passengers having slipping problems due to water during prior rain events or at any other time.” As such, “no reasonable jury could conclude that NJT and Alstom had actual or constructive notice…in a sufficient time prior to plaintiff’s injury to have taken measures to protect against it.”
On appeal, Jenkins-Miller maintained that surveillance footage timestamped near her fall showed visible pooling; she also argued lack of inspection between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., combined with ongoing storms documented in logs, should support an inference that defendants would have discovered accumulated water through basic inspection practices. Plaintiffs also invoked application of New Jersey’s mode-of-operation rule—which can relieve plaintiffs from proving notice if hazardous conditions are inherent in a business’s method—but both trial court and appellate division rejected this argument as not applicable outside self-service business settings.
The appellate panel reviewed whether summary judgment was appropriate under Rule 4:46-2(c), finding it proper where “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged”—and agreed with lower court findings based on evidence presented. Regarding claims against public entity NJT under TCA standards (N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 et seq.), judges noted immunity is presumed unless statutory exceptions apply; liability requires proof property was dangerous at time of injury plus actual/constructive notice or creation by employee action—standards not met here according to their review.
For private entities like Alstom SA facing common law negligence claims from business invitees, courts require similar proof regarding knowledge or discoverability of hazards plus breach causing injury; again judges found insufficient evidence showing duration or obviousness necessary for constructive notice.
Additionally, plaintiffs’ arguments regarding industry standards for inspection were unsupported by expert testimony—a requirement when jurors cannot rely solely on common experience to assess reasonableness—and thus failed under negligent inspection theories.
Ultimately, both trial court and appellate division affirmed dismissal because neither defendant had adequate warning nor opportunity to remedy any hazardous condition before Jenkins-Miller’s fall amid rapidly changing weather circumstances.
Attorneys listed include J. Robert Bratman (of counsel) and John C. Lowenberg representing appellants via Stark & Stark PC; Janet Greenberg Cohen (Assistant Attorney General) and Elizabeth Merrill (Deputy Attorney General) appeared for respondents via Jennifer Davenport’s office as Attorney General representing NJ Transit Corporation and Alstom SA. The case ID is A-1237-24.
