1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. A.2d
  4. 749 A.2d
  5. 749 A.2d 868 (2000)
 

ROCCO v. NJ TRANSIT RAIL OPERATIONS

749 A.2d 868 (2000)

330 N.J. Super. 320

Victor N. ROCCO and Sandra Rocco, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEW JERSEY TRANSIT RAIL OPERATIONS, INC.; Bombardier, Inc.; Faiveley (Canada) Inc., and its successor in interest; EFE Transport, Inc., as successor in interest to Faiveley (Canada) Inc., and in its own right and Westinghouse Air Brake Co., Inc., as successor in interest to EFE Transport, Inc., and Faiveley (Canada) Inc., and in its own right, Defendants-Respondents. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc., Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Bombardier, Inc., Third Party Defendant/Fourth Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Faiveley (Canada) Inc., and its successor in interest; EFE Transport, Inc., as successor in interest to Faiveley (Canada) Inc., and in its own right, and Westinghouse Air Brake Co., Inc., as successor in interest to EFE Transport, Inc., and Faiveley (Canada) Inc., and in its own right, Fourth Party Defendants-Respondents.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Decided April 25, 2000.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

John W. Trimble, Sr., Turnersville, for appellant.

Valerie Egar, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. (John J. Farmer, Jr., Attorney General, attorney; Joseph L. Yannotti, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ms. Egar, on the brief).

Alan Greenberg, Marlton, for respondent Bombardier, Inc. (Rawle & Henderson, attorneys; Mr. Greenberg on the brief).

Tricia E. Habert, for respondents Faiveley (Canada) Inc., EFE Transport, Inc., and Westinghouse Air Brakes Company, Inc. (Crawshaw, Mayfield, Turner, O'Mara, Donnelly & McBride, Cherry Hill, attorneys; Francis X. Donnelly, Haddon Heights, on the brief).

Before Judges CARCHMAN, LEFELT and LINTNER.

The opinion of the court was delivered by LINTNER, J.S.C. (temporarily assigned).

This appeal requires us to determine several issues, including whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can be used in a personal injury claim against a public entity based upon the existence of an alleged dangerous condition of public property. We hold that the doctrine does not apply to such claims. This case has a complex procedural...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases