2022 IL 127603
Ill.2022Background
- Decedent trespassed into the CTA Red Line subway tunnel, fell from an unauthorized recessed catwalk onto the right-of-way near the tracks, and was later struck and killed by a train.
- Complaint alleged the area was lit, trains had headlights, at least two train operators and security cameras saw the decedent lying next to the tracks, but CTA failed to notify other trains or stop service.
- Plaintiff (administrator) sued for negligence (failure to warn/stop service/rescue), willful and wanton misconduct (failure to keep lookout and monitor cameras), and spoliation of video evidence.
- Circuit court dismissed under section 2-615, holding that a moving train is an open and obvious danger and the CTA owed no duty to trespassers (relying on Choate and Restatement §337).
- Appellate court reversed, finding plaintiff plausibly pled a duty under Restatement §337 as a discovered trespasser in a position of peril. The Illinois Supreme Court granted review and reversed the appellate court, affirming dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CTA owed a duty of ordinary care to a trespasser discovered in tunnel | Quiroz: CTA discovered decedent in peril and thus had duty to warn, notify other operators, or stop service to rescue him | CTA: Decedent was a trespasser and moving train was an open and obvious danger; no duty to warn or rescue | No duty of ordinary care; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Restatement §337 (artificial conditions highly dangerous to known trespassers) applies to a moving train | Quiroz: §337 covers discovered trespassers in peril and supports a duty here | CTA: §337 requires a latent or non-obvious danger; a moving train is open and obvious so §337(b) not satisfied | §337 not applicable to open and obvious dangers like moving trains |
| Whether courts should adopt a broader duty (e.g., §336-style duty to conduct operations with reasonable care after discovering trespasser) | Quiroz: CTA personnel and camera monitors had affirmative duty to stop service and rescue once aware | CTA: Adopting such duty would impose heavy operational burdens, continuous camera monitoring, and safety risks to passengers | Court declines to adopt new broad duty to rescue trespassers; burden too great |
| Whether willful or wanton conduct was adequately alleged | Quiroz: Failure to monitor cameras and keep lookout was willful/wanton | CTA: No legal duty to monitor or keep lookout for trespassers; allegations insufficient | Willful and wanton claim not adequately pled; dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Choate v. Indiana Harbor Belt R.R. Co., 2012 IL 112948 (a moving train is an open and obvious danger; no duty to warn trespassers)
- Lee v. Chicago Transit Authority, 152 Ill. 2d 432 (adopted Restatement §337 for hidden, highly dangerous artificial conditions like an unmarked third rail)
- Rhodes v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R., 172 Ill. 2d 213 (discussed place-of-danger exception where a discovered trespasser in the path of a train may impose a duty)
- Bruns v. City of Centralia, 2014 IL 116998 (open-and-obvious standard uses an objective reasonable-person test)
- Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, 238 Ill. 2d 215 (factors for duty analysis; courts may consider operational impact on transit systems)