UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

CAMDEN VICINAGE 

WILLIAM HELLER, 

Plaintiff, Civil No. 11-506 (RMB/JS) 

v. MEMORANDUM ORDER 

GANIYU ODUNBAKU, et al., 

Defendants. 

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon two motions: (1) 

Plaintiff William Heller’s Motion for Summary Judgment against 

Defendant U.S. Rail Corp. of N.J. (“U.S. Rail”) [Dkt. No. 114]; 

and (2) Defendant Anchor Glass Container Corporation’s Motion 

for Partial Summary Judgment against Defendant U.S. Rail [Dkt. 

No. 115] relating to its common law indemnification claim. Both 

motions are DENIED. 

This case arises out of a February 25, 2010, train 

collision with a tractor of a semi-rig owned by Defendant Ganiyu 

Odunbaku parked on the track at Defendant Anchor Glass’s plant 

in Salem, New Jersey. Plaintiff Heller was the conductor in a 

railroad crew delivering three loaded hopper rail cars to the 

Salem plant. Defendant Robert Henry (“Henry”) was the engineer. 

Heller and Henry were employed by Defendant U.S. Rail. 

Case 1:11-cv-00506-RMB-JS Document 169 Filed 09/16/15 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 2580
At the time of the accident, Plaintiff Heller was located 

on the northwest side ladder of the leading rail car. Heller 

was controlling the shoving movement via radio communication 

with Henry who operated the locomotive from the control section. 

As the locomotive approached this area, Heller was able to 

visualize the vehicle from his positon on the rail car. 

However, the railroad tracks went around a bend next to a 

building, which allegedly obstructed Henry’s view of the loading 

dock area from the control section. 

Allegedly, after Heller observed Odunbaku’s tractor 

obstructing the tracks he attempted to instruct Henry to stop 

the locomotive via radio communication. However, Henry did not 

receive the transmission because the radio allegedly 

malfunctioned. Heller alleges he suffered personal injuries 

after jumping off the train to avoid the collision. Defendants 

contend that Heller suffered injuries as a result of slipping on 

the ice. 

Given the extraordinary delay of this case, the Court sees 

no need to further delay the case by conducting a lengthy 

analysis of the record before it. There are too many genuinely 

disputed issues of fact, thereby preventing the granting of 

summary judgment. There are disputed facts as to what caused 

Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. There is evidence in the record 

that Plaintiff did not jump from the train prior to the 

Case 1:11-cv-00506-RMB-JS Document 169 Filed 09/16/15 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 2581
collision, but dismounted the train after the collision and 

after informing his locomotive engineer by radio that the train 

had collided with a tractor-trailer parked on the railroad 

tracks. Moreover, there are disputed facts as to whether 

Plaintiff’s injuries were caused because the portable radio 

malfunctioned.1

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY on this 16th day of September 2015, ORDERED

that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgement and the 

Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgement are DENIED. 

 s/Renée Marie Bumb 

 RENÉE MARIE BUMB 

 United States District Judge 

 1

 Because there are many disputed facts relating to causation, 

this Court need not reach the disputed issues of whether the 

radio was subject to the Locomotive Inspection Act. 

Case 1:11-cv-00506-RMB-JS Document 169 Filed 09/16/15 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 2582