Being involved in a motor vehicle collision with a train at a railroad grade crossing is a traumatic, life-altering experience. When a passenger suffers injuries in such an accident, determining legal liability requires analyzing the duties owed by both the motor vehicle driver and the railroad entity. Under New York law, an injured passenger generally possesses distinct legal claims against multiple potential tortfeasors.

First-Party No-Fault Benefits vs. Third-Party Lawsuits

If you were a passenger in a motor vehicle hit by a train in New York, your host vehicle’s insurance policy provides immediate First-Party No-Fault (PIP) coverage. This covers up to $50,000 in necessary medical bills and lost wages, regardless of who caused the crash.

The important first deadline is to file a No-Fault application for benefits with the host car’s insurance carrier. You have 30 days from the date of the accident to file such an application. For a full breakdown of PIP rules and deadlines, see our prior post explaining New York No-Fault Insurance Benefits.

Claims Against the Host Vehicle Driver

A passenger in an automobile owes no active duty to control the vehicle and is rarely found contributorily negligent. Under New York principles of comparative fault, the driver of the vehicle carrying the passenger owes a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances.

Motorist Duties at New York Railroad Crossings

First, railroads generally hold the right of way at grade crossings (Hicks v. Erie R. Co., 10 A.D.2d 795, 197 N.Y.S.2d 803 (4th Dept. 1960)). Under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) § 1170, drivers approaching a railroad grade crossing must bring their vehicles to a complete stop when signal devices warn of an approaching train, when crossing gates are lowered, or when a train is plainly visible and in hazardous proximity. (Furthermore, VTL § 1171 mandates specific stopping rules for designated commercial or passenger-carrying vehicles.)

If the driver failed to look and listen appropriately, attempted to outrun an approaching train, or failed to maintain proper control of the vehicle, the driver is liable to the passenger for injuries proximately caused by that negligence.

Claims Against the Railroad Company

While railroads hold a paramount right-of-way at grade crossings due to the physical impossibility of stopping a train instantly, this right-of-way is not absolute. Railroad operators and engineers must exercise reasonable care to give timely and adequate warning of a train’s approach and maintain safe crossing conditions.

1. Duty to Provide Timely and Adequate Warning

A railroad has a duty to provide timely and adequate warning to highway travelers. Whether a warning is adequate depends on the surrounding circumstances, including:

  • The speed of the train as it approaches the crossing.
  • Weather conditions and physical obstacles affecting sightlines.
  • The grade of the highway and the railroad roadbed.

2. Audible Warnings and Statutory Requirements

Under Railroad Law § 53-b, engineers are required to sound a whistle or ring a bell when approaching crossings. While failure to sound a signal may evidence negligence, New York courts have established that the mere noise of a train or the glare of a headlight alone does not automatically satisfy the duty to provide adequate warning. Testimony from witnesses in a position to hear that no whistle or bell was sounded can establish a prima facie case of negligence against the railroad (Latourelle v. New York Central R.R. Co., 301 N.Y. 103, 92 N.E.2d 911 (1950)).

3. Obstruction of Vision and Right-of-Way Maintenance

Under Railroad Law §§ 50 and 53-a, railroads and local municipalities must maintain crossing property free from sight obstructions where practicable. A railroad may be held liable for negligent failure to control overgrown vegetation or visual obstacles that impede a driver’s view of an oncoming train (Budik v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 88 A.D.3d 1097, 931 N.Y.S.2d 176 (3d Dept. 2011)).

Federal Preemption Considerations in Railroad Claims

In cases involving active warning devices (e.g., gates, flashing lights), claims against railroads regarding warning device adequacy may be impacted by federal law.

Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) Preemption:
Under federal law (49 U.S.C. § 20106) and U.S. Supreme Court precedent (Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Shanklin, 529 U.S. 344 (2000)), where warning devices at a crossing were installed using federal safety standards, those federal safety standards supersede state law tort claims. However, state law claims based on train speed violations, failure to sound required audible warnings, or negligent maintenance of the right-of-way (such as overgrown vegetation) generally survive preemption challenges (Budik v. CSX Transportation, Inc.).

The Necessity of Expert Testimony

Establishing liability against a railroad may require specialized technical evidence. Unlike standard automobile negligence actions, evaluating a train collision involves complex engineering standards. Plaintiffs may require expert testimony regarding:

  • Rail Operation Standards: Proper train handling and emergency braking response times.
  • Sightline Analysis: Visual obstruction evaluations and stopping sight distances.
  • Acoustic Engineering: Sound propagation of locomotive horns relative to ambient noise and vehicle sound insulation.

Conclusion: Determining Liability in Your Claim

In your case, the host car driver will probably be found at least partially responsible for the accident. Depending on other circumstances (such as warning compliance, sightline obstructions, and speed), the engineer and/or railroad company may be liable as well.

By James Santner, Esq.

If you have questions about a similar situation, feel free to contact us. Consultations are free and there is no fee unless we win.