McDonald v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter R.R. Corp.
988 N.E.2d 1078
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- This is an Illinois Appellate Court decision reversing a circuit court judgment in a train-crossing case.
- Plaintiff Marjorie McDonald, as executrix and individually, sued Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corp. (Metra) for injuries to Thomas McDonald.
- Decedent was struck while crossing a crosswalk at the North Glenview station; signals at the crossing were installed but not activated.
- Plaintiff alleged a high duty of care as a common carrier and asserted multiple breaches, including failure to activate signals and warn pedestrians.
- Jury verdict awarded damages; defendant sought judgment n.o.v. or new trial; supervisory orders prompted reconsideration in light of Choate, leading to reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Metra owe a duty to warn of the approaching train? | McDonald argues duty exists due to common-carrier status and failure to activate signals. | Open and obvious danger negates duty; no duty to warn. | No duty to warn; open-and-obvious danger negates duty. |
| Is the danger open and obvious such that no duty exists, under Choate? | Choate does not apply to absolve duty here; decedent was crossing. | Choate supports no duty when danger is obvious. | Danger deemed open and obvious; decedent should have appreciated risk. |
| Do distraction or deliberate-encounter exceptions create a duty despite open and obvious danger? | Evidence could show decedent distracted or weighing risks. | No evidence of distraction or deliberate encounter justifying duty. | Neither exception applies; no duty arises. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. Co., 37 Ill. 2d 494 (Ill. 1967) (standard for judgment n.o.v. review)
- York v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, 222 Ill. 2d 147 (Ill. 2006) (de novo review of duty element in negligence)
- Washington v. City of Chicago, 188 Ill. 2d 235 (Ill. 1999) (duty analysis; relationship between parties)
- Sollami v. Eaton, 201 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2002) (open and obvious doctrine; distraction/deliberate encounter exceptions)
- Choate v. Indiana Harbor Belt R.R. Co., 2012 IL 112948 (Ill. 2012) (moving train is an obvious danger; open-and-obvious duty analysis clarified)
- Park v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter R.R. Corp., 2011 IL App (1st) 101283 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2011) (deliberate encounter exception discussion)
- Zimmerman v. Village of Skokie, 183 Ill. 2d 30 (Ill. 1998) (duty analysis and immunities framework)