2021 IL App (1st) 200181-U
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- On April 15, 2018, Ricardo Quiroz entered the CTA Red Line tunnel, fell from a recessed wall pocket onto the tracks, lay parallel to the rails, and was struck by a southbound train after several trains passed the scene.
- Plaintiff Alejandro Quiroz (administrator of the estate) sued the CTA for wrongful death, alleging train operators and CTA security either saw Ricardo on the tracks or failed to monitor cameras/trains and therefore owed him a duty as a discovered trespasser.
- The complaint was amended repeatedly; the second amended complaint pleaded (a) discovered trespasser allegations (clearly visible, injured and unable to remove himself), (b) willful and wanton misconduct by operators/security, and (c) spoliation for alleged failure to produce surveillance video.
- The trial court granted the CTA’s section 2‑615 dismissal with prejudice, reasoning trains/tracks are an open and obvious danger and no duty was owed to a trespasser.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the second amended complaint sufficiently alleged that Ricardo was a discovered trespasser in peril and unable to remove himself, thereby plausibly invoking the duty under Restatement §337 and Lee v. CTA; the court did not resolve the factual truth of the allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to discovered trespasser | Ricardo was discovered, clearly visible, injured and unable to remove himself; CTA had duty to stop/remove him | Ricardo was a trespasser and trains/tracks are open and obvious hazards; CTA owed no duty | Reversed: pleadings plausibly alleged discovery and peril under Restatement §337/Lee so dismissal under 2‑615 improper |
| Willful and wanton conduct | Operators/security acted willfully/wanton by ignoring or failing to monitor | Allegations are speculative and conclusory | Not finally decided on merits; dismissal as to duty reversed; willful/wanton claim remains for further proceedings |
| Spoliation claim | CTA failed to produce surveillance video | CTA had produced footage before the second amended complaint; spoliation unsupported | Appellate review limited to pleadings; court did not sustain spoliation claim and did not base reversal on it |
| Motion to strike appellee brief material | Portions of CTA brief rely on facts outside the pleadings (video descriptions) | CTA cited factual material in its brief | Denied: appellate review confined to the pleadings, judicial notice, and record admissions |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. Chicago Transit Authority, 152 Ill. 2d 432 (Ill. 1992) (adopted Restatement §337 and held landowners owe ordinary care to a discovered trespasser in place of danger)
- Heastie v. Roberts, 226 Ill. 2d 515 (Ill. 2007) (court must accept well‑pleaded facts and reasonable inferences on a section 2‑615 motion)
- Bryson v. News America Publications, Inc., 174 Ill. 2d 77 (Ill. 1996) (pleadings are construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff)
- Cockrell v. Koppers Industries, Inc., 281 Ill. App. 3d 1099 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) (trespasser status when an invitee deviates from the invited area)