Choate v. Indiana Harbor Belt R.R. Co.
980 N.E.2d 58
Ill.2012Background
- Plaintiff Dominic Choate, age 12, was trespassing on railroad right-of-way with friends when he attempted to jump onto a moving freight train.
- Railroad tracks run near a parking lot; there was no pedestrian crossing at that location and fencing was incomplete.
- Plaintiff jumped onto a moving train, suffered a severe injury resulting in below-knee amputation.
- Plaintiff alleged defendants failed to fence, warn, or monitor the area to prevent trespassing and injury.
- Jury awarded damages to plaintiff; the circuit court entered judgment on the verdict after comparative negligence finding; on appeal, judgments were reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings, which the Supreme Court subsequently reversed.
- Defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and new trial, arguing no duty to protect against an obvious danger to a trespasser; the issue centered on premises liability and the child trespasser exception to a landowner’s duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the railroad owed a duty to a child trespasser. | Choate: child trespasser exception applies; moving train poses risk to children. | IHB/B&OCT/CSX: no duty owed to trespassers for obvious dangers; duty limited. | No duty owed; moving train is an obvious danger; child trespasser exception not satisfied. |
| Whether the obviousness of danger is a question for the court or the jury. | The danger to children from a moving train should be viewed as foreseeable and not open and obvious. | Obvious danger is a matter of law precluding duty. | Obvious danger determined as a question of law; moving train deemed obvious danger precluding duty. |
| Whether the expense of remedying the dangerous condition affects duty. | Remedying fencing could have prevented injury; jury could find duty. | Cost of remedying is not slight relative to risk; no duty. | Duty not imposed; expense not a basis to create duty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kahn v. James Burton Co., 5 Ill.2d 614 (1955) (foreseeability of harm to children, child trespasser exception)
- Corcoran v. Village of Libertyville, 73 Ill.2d 316 (1978) (foreseeability as cornerstone of liability to children)
- Cope v. Doe, 102 Ill.2d 278 (1984) (obvious dangers and duty to children; premises liability framework)
- Mt. Zion State Bank & Trust v. Consolidated Communications, Inc., 169 Ill.2d 110 (1995) (duty and open/obvious danger analysis; foreseeability standard)
- La Salle Natl. Bank v. City of Chicago, 132 Ill.App.3d 607 (1985) (appellate decision overruled for moving train open/obvious danger rule)
- Engel v. Chicago & North Western Transportation Co., 186 Ill.App.3d 522 (1989) (appellate decisions on obvious danger to child trespassers)
- Fitzgerald v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co., 114 Ill.App.118 (1904) (early recognition of dangers to children from moving trains)