Park v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation
2011 IL App (1st) 101283
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiff Jeung-Hee Park appeals after the trial court dismissed her fifth amended complaint in a negligence action arising from Hiroyuki Joho’s death at Edgebrook station on Metra’s Milwaukee District line.
- Plaintiff alleged Metra failed to warn of open and obvious danger and to install safety devices at a pedestrian crossing.
- Canadian Pacific allegedly failed to notify Metra of approaching Amtrak trains and to adopt a policy ensuring safe rail traffic control.
- The Amtrak train struck Hiroyuki as he crossed the tracks when he mistook an Amtrak train for Metra’s train he intended to board.
- The trial court granted 2-615 and 2-619 dismissals, ruling no duty to warn of an open and obvious danger posed by a moving train.
- Plaintiff appeals the open-and-obvious-duty determination and related issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Metra owed a duty to Hiroyuki regarding open and obvious danger | Park contends there was a duty to warn/guard | Metra asserts no duty due to open and obvious danger | No duty found; danger open and obvious |
| Whether the distraction exception applies to create a duty | Distractions by foliage/weather could impair perception | Distraction exception does not apply given Hiroyuki’s awareness | Distraction exception does not apply |
| Whether the deliberate encounter exception applies to impose a duty | No compulsion or impetus to disregard risk shown | No deliberate encounter; not applicable | Deliberate encounter exception does not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Bucheleres v. Chicago Park Dist., 171 Ill. 2d 435 (1996) (open and obvious dangers generally negate duty to warn for obvious conditions)
- Sollami v. Eaton, 201 Ill. 2d 1 (2002) (open and obvious doctrine; two exceptions)
- Deibert v. Bauer Bros. Construction Co., 141 Ill. 2d 430 (1990) (open and obvious standard for risk recognition)
- Sandoval v. City of Chicago, 357 Ill. App. 3d 1023 (2005) (whether condition’s open/obvious nature depends on objective knowledge)
- Ward v. Kmart Corp., 136 Ill. 2d 132 (1990) (distraction exception framework for open and obvious dangers)
- Bonner v. City of Chicago, 334 Ill. App. 3d 481 (2002) (distraction/foreseeability limitations re: open and obvious)
- Prostran v. City of Chicago, 349 Ill. App. 3d 81 (2004) (deliberate encounter principle in open and obvious context)
- Feltmeier v. Feltmeier, 207 Ill. 2d 263 (2003) (standards for reviewing dismissal; duty analysis framework)