Conrail v. Driver
Background
A driver struck a Conrail train while it was properly stopped at the crossing to perform a switching operation. The driver sued for alleged injuries he suffered as a result of the collision. He claimed there should have been different warning devices at the crossing and that the railroad should be liable under the "blocked crossing statute", a summary offense, and should have to reconfigure its tracks to prevent the blocking of the crossing during switching.
Solution
Craig Staudenmaier represented the railroad. On behalf of the railroad, he moved to dismiss the claims regarding warning devices on the basis of the occupied crossing rule, which holds that once the train is in and fully occupying a crossing, as this train clearly was, no additional warning of its presence is required under Pennsylvania law. As to the claim under the blocked crossing statute, Mr. Staudenmaier asserted in a motion for summary judgment that federal law preempted such a claim.
Result
The trial court dismissed the claims regarding the warning devices on the basis of the occupied crossing rule. On the blocked crossing statute claim, in what is believed to be a case of first impression in Pennsylvania, the court also agreed with the lawyers from Nauman Smith that federal law preempted any asserted claim under the asserted statute and dismissed all remaining claims against the railroad.
Nauman Smith Shissler & Hall, LLP
200 North 3rd Street, 18th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101
717.236.3010
fax: 717.234.1925
info@nssh.com