Mandal v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 430 N.J. Super. 287 (App. Div. 2013). Plaintiff fell on the platform of a PATH train station and injured herself. She sued the Port Authority, which operates PATH. At trial, the judge charged the jury that the Port Authority owed plaintiff the heightened duty that a common carrier owes to its patrons. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for over $10 million, which included prejudgment interest. The Port Authority appealed, arguing (among other things) that the heightened standard did not apply because plaintiff’s injury occurred not on a train, or while getting on or off a train, but on the platform. In an opinion by Judge Fisher, the Appellate Division reversed the jury verdict.
After carefully canvassing prior cases that discussed when the higher standard of care to which a common carrier can unquestionably be subjected applies, Judge Fisher concluded that “while on board a train, or while embarking or debarking, the high degree of care owed by a common carrier might apply, but the lesser standard of care applicable to occupiers of land otherwise applies.” Because plaintiff was injured while walking through a corridor, it was error to instruct the jury that the higher standard of care was to be applied. That error was not merely harmless, and a new trial on all issues was required.
But on a different issue, which the panel reached in order to guide the trial court on remand, Judge Fisher rejected the Port Authority’s position. The Port Authority contended that because it is a “public entity,” the Tort Claims Act (“TCA”) barred any award of prejudgment interest against the Port Authority, citing N.J.S.A. 59:2-2(a). Citing prior cases that had declined to apply other aspects of the TCA to the Port Authority or another similar agency, Judge Fisher held that the Port Authority was not exempt from prejudgment interest by virtue of the TCA. “The compact that created the Port Authority allows it to sue and be sued to the same extent as though it were a private corporation and may, for the same reason, be liable for prejudgment interest.” Thus, although the TCA protects a “public entity” from prejudgment interest, as another panel of the Appellate Division recently ruled, the Port Authority did not qualify as a “public entity” under the TCA.