## Facts

- College student Matthew Ziniti drove a pickup truck on Slaughterhouse Road in Northfield Falls, Vermont, and was struck at a railroad grade crossing by a freight train operated by New England Central Railroad, Inc. (NECR).
- Slaughterhouse Road was a Class IV town highway: a dirt/gravel road that ran from Route 12 over a one-lane covered bridge and then curved and rose uphill to the crossing, passed two residences, and ended in a dead end.
- At the time of the collision, the crossing was marked by a single railroad crossbuck sign located on the left side of the roadway for drivers approaching from the bridge.
- There were no gates, flashing lights, or stop sign at the crossing, and there was no crossbuck on the right side or advance warning sign farther back from the crossing.
- Ziniti alleged that the crossing area included vegetation and a rock outcropping that reduced a motorist’s view down the tracks, and he claimed NECR failed to maintain the right-of-way to provide adequate sightlines.
- Evidence indicated the train crew sounded the horn as required, and vehicle data indicated Ziniti did not come to a complete stop immediately before impact.
- Ziniti sued NECR for negligence on multiple theories, including: (a) inadequate warnings due to missing right-side and advance warning signs; and (b) failure to maintain the right-of-way/sightlines near the crossing.
- NECR moved for summary judgment on the “missing-signage” theory, arguing Ziniti lacked evidence that the absence of a right-side crossbuck or an advance warning sign caused or contributed to the collision.
- NECR presented evidence that the existing left-side crossbuck was clearly visible to approaching drivers, that a right-side sign would not have been visible in the same approach, and that the road layout meant an advance warning sign would not provide meaningful extra notice.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment for NECR on the missing-signage theory; Ziniti’s other negligence theories proceeded to trial, and the jury returned a verdict for NECR.
- Ziniti appealed, challenging the partial summary judgment and several trial rulings.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court properly grant summary judgment to NECR on the theory that the absence of a right-side crossbuck and/or an advance warning sign proximately caused or contributed to the collision?
2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying Ziniti’s request for a jury view of the crossing?
3. Did the trial court err by denying Ziniti’s motion for a directed verdict based on NECR’s alleged violation of a railroad right-of-way safety statute (vegetation/rock outcropping and sightlines)?
4. Did the trial court err by refusing to instruct the jury on the sudden-emergency doctrine?

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for NECR.
- The Court affirmed partial summary judgment on the missing-signage theory because Ziniti did not present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find, without speculation, that additional signage would have prevented the collision.
- The Court held the trial court acted within its discretion in denying a jury view because the scene and conditions were adequately presented through photographs, diagrams, stipulations, and testimony.
- The Court affirmed denial of a directed verdict: even if the right-of-way statute applied and was violated, negligence and causation were not established as a matter of law on the record, and the jury could resolve those questions.
- The Court affirmed the refusal to give a sudden-emergency instruction because the evidence did not justify the doctrine, and the standard negligence instructions allowed the jury to assess Ziniti’s conduct in context.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is appropriate on a negligence theory when the nonmoving party cannot produce evidence supporting a reasonable inference (not guesswork) that the alleged breach was a proximate cause of the injury.
- Proximate cause requires more than the claim that an additional warning device “could have” helped; the record must support a reasonable conclusion that the added device would likely have altered conduct in a way that avoided the harm.
- A trial court has broad discretion to permit or deny a jury view; denial is not error when other evidence sufficiently conveys the physical layout and visibility conditions at issue.
- A safety-statute violation may be evidence of negligence, but it does not automatically entitle a plaintiff to judgment as a matter of law; breach, causation, and the effect of any violation commonly remain jury questions when disputed.
- A sudden-emergency instruction is limited to situations involving a sudden and unexpected peril not created by the actor; it may be refused when the general negligence charge adequately covers the parties’ duties and the jury can evaluate the claimed emergency under ordinary reasonableness standards.

## Conclusion

In *Ziniti v. New England Central Railroad, Inc.*, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed a defense judgment arising from a rural grade-crossing collision, holding that the missing-signage theory failed for lack of evidence of proximate causation and finding no reversible error in the trial court’s refusal to order a jury view, deny a directed verdict based on an alleged right-of-way statute violation, or decline a sudden-emergency instruction.


Ziniti v. New England Central Railroad, Inc., 207 A.3d 463 (2019)