Mount Laurel, NJ — December 29, 2025, one person was killed and three others were injured in a truck accident at about 2:10 p.m. on the New Jersey Turnpike.

Authorities said a northbound car was exiting at the James Fenimore Cooper Service Area near mile marker 39.1 when it crashed into a semi-truck with a roll-off trailer that had stopped because of a mechanical problem.

A passenger in the car died at the scene of the crash, according to authorities, while the driver and two other passengers were hospitalized with serious injuries. Their names have not been made public yet.

No other injuries have been reported.

Authorities have not released any additional information about the Burlington County crash at this time.

Commentary by Attorney Michael Grossman

When people read about a crash like the one that just happened in Mount Laurel, where a car hit the back of a stopped 18-wheeler on the shoulder, they may assume it was just a matter of driver error or bad luck. But in my experience, crashes like this raise serious questions that only a thorough investigation can answer.

The most obvious issue here is why the truck was stopped in the first place. Authorities said it had a mechanical problem, but that phrase doesn’t tell us much. Was it something sudden and unavoidable, or a breakdown the trucking company could have prevented with routine maintenance? There's a big difference between a flat tire that blows out unexpectedly and a known brake problem that got ignored. One is bad luck; the other may be negligence.

It's also not clear how far onto the shoulder the truck was parked, or whether any warning devices — like triangles, flares or hazard lights — were in use. Federal rules require truck drivers to set out warning triangles if they’re stopped on or near a travel lane. If that didn’t happen, or if the truck wasn’t pulled far enough off the roadway, then it's fair to ask whether the truck created a hazard that contributed to the crash.

Then there’s the question of what the car driver saw, or didn’t see, as they exited the turnpike. Was there any obstruction or curve that blocked the view of the truck? Was the car traveling too fast for the turn-off area? Was anyone distracted or reacting to something unexpected? These are all pieces of a larger puzzle, and right now, too many of them are missing.

I've worked on cases where trucks broke down in places they never should have been to begin with, and cases where drivers claimed mechanical failure only to have black box data or repair logs tell a different story. In some situations, it turns out the mechanical issue was no surprise; it was the result of skipped inspections, delayed repairs or rushed maintenance. And when companies cut those corners, people get hurt.

Getting the truth in a case like this means digging into maintenance records, driver logs and any available electronic data from the truck. Was the truck equipped with a dash cam or in-cab monitoring system? If so, that footage could show how the truck came to a stop and whether the driver took proper safety steps. Was the engine control module (ECM) downloaded? That would help confirm when the truck stopped, how fast it was moving and what systems were active before impact.

There’s no way to know right now who, if anyone, is at fault. But the idea that a “mechanical issue” tells the whole story is wishful thinking. Mechanical issues don’t happen in a vacuum. They’re either the result of unforeseen failures or of choices someone made, or failed to make, long before the truck ever reached mile marker 39.

Key Takeaways:

• The phrase “mechanical problem” leaves open critical questions about whether the truck’s condition was preventable.
• It’s unclear whether the truck was safely and properly positioned on the shoulder with required warning devices in place.
• Investigators should look at maintenance records, black box data and dash cam footage to determine what really caused the truck to stop.
• Depending on the findings, responsibility could fall on the trucking company, the driver or possibly others.
• Full accountability depends on evidence, not assumptions, and that evidence often lies beneath the surface.