FIRST DIVISION February 13, 2007

Nos. 1-05-1888 and 1-05-3169, Co nsolida ted TANYA VEGA and JOSE VEGA, Indiv. and as Paren ts an d Nex t Friends of

Bry an na Vega , a Mi

nor, Plai ntif fs-Appel lan ts,
v. NORT HEA ST ILLINOIS R EGIONA L CO MMUTER RAIL ROAD COR PO RATI ON, d/ b/a M ET RA; and CHICAG O PA

RK DISTRI CT, Defendan ts-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) A ppe al f rom the C i rcui t Court of Coo k C oun

ty No. 01 L 8870

Ho no r ab le Jef frey Lawrence , Judge Presidin

g.

JU STI CECA

HI LL de l i v er ed th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Plai nti f f s Ta ny a a nd Jos e V eg a a

ppe al f rom orde rs of su m mary j udg men t en tere d i n f av or of d efenda nt s No rt heas t Illinois Reg ional Co mmute r Ra ilroa d Co rp ., do ing busines s as M et ra , a nd t he Ch ica go P ar k D ist r ict
. P lain t iffs ' e ig ht
- yea r - o ld da ug ht er Br yan na wa s s t ruc k a nd inju r ed by a Metra tra i n a s sh e cross ed a ra

i l road track

adj acent to Ridge Pa

rk, a ci ty p ark, on

Jul y 26, 200 0. She reache d the

track b y goi ng a round a f ence that stopped

short of f ull y ba rri cadi ng th e park gro unds from the rail

road track . Plain

tiff s fi led a 12-count co mpl

ain t, all egin g negli gence against Metra, the park distr ict and the City of Chicago. Plai

ntif fs v oluntaril y dismi ssed the city as a def endan t. Metra an

d the park d i stri ct f i l ed m otion s f or sum mary j udgm en t that the tri

al court1-05-1 888 and 1-05- 3169, Co ns.

2

gr an t ed
. Pla int iffs a pp ea l. We affir m. Plaint iff s allege d in t heir co mplaint t hat Met ra er ect ed o r c aus ed t o be er ect ed fenc ing bet wee n its t ra cks and R idge P ar k, t hat t he fence did no t ru n t he ent ire d ista nce be t wee n t he Met ra t ra cks and R idge P ar k and t hat Met ra knew or sho uld have kno wn t hat childre n cr os sed t he unf enced portion of i

ts right-of-way

to access Ri

dge Park. Plai

ntif fs alle ged that Metra was negligent in fail

ing t o fe nce o r o t her wise ba rr icade ade qua t ely its t ra cks and r ight of w ay, failing t o e re ct signs o r w ar n ped est rians o f the dang er s o f cro ssing it s t ra cks and r ight -o f-wa y and failing to keep a proper lookout . Plai ntif fs al le ged that Metra showed "utt er in dif feren ce to o r consci ous disregard for the safety to t he publ ic" an d commi tt ed "wil ful and wanton act s and omi ssions." Plaint iff s made esse nt ially

t he sa me allegat ions a gainst t he pa rk dist rict , a dding claims tha t t he dis trict knew or should h

ave kn own that chi ldren

and other pedestrians crossed the unf enced portion of the ri ght-of -way to acces s Ri

dge Pa rk. Th e evi de nc e i nc l ude d di sc ove ry depos i ti ons . Br yan na , ag e e i gh

t i n 2 000 , testi f

i ed tha t on t he da y of t he ac cident she w as g oing t o t he pa rk wit h her uncles , D avid and Malco lm. The tracks were between the p ark an

d the hom e of Bry an na's gran dm other, th e un

cles’ mother. Br yann a s aid she wa s r un ning ac r o ss t he t r ac ks wh en she wa s hit by t he t r ain
. Sh e s aid she did
n ot remem

b er h av i n g cros se d th

e tracksat th

at l oca ti on oth er th an on th e day of th e acc i den

t. Bryanna 's unc le David Wa rr en, abo ut age 13 in 2 000 , t est ifi ed t hat he had t ake n Bryanna to the park

more than

f i ve tim es b ef ore the d ay of the ac ciden

t, usi ng th e sh ortcut more

than once . Davi d said when

he wen t t o t he park wi

th hi s brothers, they woul d "hop over the fe

nce" to reach th e tracks . B ry

an n a' s u n cl e M al col m W ar re n , a ge 10 i n 20 00 , s ai d h e w oul d ta ke ei th er 96 th1-05-1 888 and 1-05- 3169, Co ns.

3

Street wh ere there w ere crossi

ng g ates or " the shortcut" a crossthe tracks wh

en goi ng to the park. Plaint iff s neit her pr ese nt ed no r e licited t est imony tha t anyone else u sed t he sho rt cut or t hat t he boy s al way s or usu al l y use d the shortcut. Charlott e Warren, Bryann a's grandm

ot her, said when

Bryann a's m ot her Tanya Vega was a child, " ever ybody" u sed t o g o t hro ugh t he o pening in t he fence and c ro ss t he t ra cks t o g et t o t he pa r k. Sh e s aid t he r e w as no ho le o ro pe ning in t he fen ce in 2 00 0. T an ya s aid she wa s la st in Ri dge Park about 20 years earl ie r. Tanya said that when sh

e was y ounger, she an

d ot hers en

tered t he pa rk by passing t hro ugh a n op ening o r ho le in a fence ne xt t o t he r ailro ad t ra cks and c ro ssing the tr acks. Plain

tiff s nei ther pr esented nor elici

ted t estim ony that t he shortcut was known to these
women or other res i den

ts of th e are a. Tr acy Hu rley was t he eng ineer o n t he Me t ra t ra in that st ru ck B ryanna. He s aid t hat he had no t see n peo ple cr os sing t he t ra cks t o g o t o o r fro m the p ar k befo re t hat day. Hur ley said he could n ot recall a specifi c i nstance wh

en h e saw pedestri ans cross i

n f ront o f the trai

n i n that area. John MacAskil l , a su

perv i sor of Ridge Pa rk, testif i ed th at he

had worked

at Ridge Pa

rk between 1974 an

d 1989. He sai d he then

returned to the park as a superv is or and had worked t her e fo r nine year s befo re t he ac cident . Ma cAsk ill said w hen Br yanna wa s injured , a chain-link fen ce ran al ong the Metra right-of-way and the east end of Ri

dge Park, begi

nni ng at 96th Street and en din g around 97th Street . He sai d a fen ce had b een i

n the sam e l ocation when

he worked at t he pa rk bet wee n 197 4 and 198 9. Mac Askill said he had not see n anyone maintaining o r p ainting the fen ce and, to his

knowle dge, no park distri ct empl oyees worked on the f

ence. He sai

d he was
un aw ar e t ha t pe de st r ian s c r o ss ed t he t r ac ks t o en t er t he so ut h e nd o f t he pa r k. He t es t ified t ha t in1-05-1 888 and 1-05- 3169, Co ns.

4

2001, after the accident, a wrought iron fen ce was i nstalle d around the perim eter of the park. He said t he new fence w as e re ct ed by GF S t ru ct ur es, but he did no t kno w if it had been hire d by Metra or t he park di strict. On cross-exam in ation MacAskill

said he was told b

y h is form er supe rvisor, now dece ase d, tha t Metra h ad i nstal l ed th e f

ence i n pl ace at the ti me of the acci den t. He s aid t hat neithe r he nor , t o his k now ledge , his co wo rk er s kne w o f a ho le in the fenc e whe n he worked a t Ri dge Pa

rk b etween 19 74 an

d 1989
. The evi dence i ncl uded as plai

ntif fs ’ exh ibits ei ght color photo graphs of the track, f ence and surroundi

ng areas. The ph

ot os were taken after the acci dent but bef

ore a new fe

nce was er ec ted aroun d th e p eri mete r of th e p ar k i n 20 01 . N on e of

th e p h otos sh

ows a w el l -w orn pa th l eadi ng to or f rom the rai l road righ t-of -wa y . The evi

de nc e al so i

nc l ude d the p ark

di stri ct' s " pl ot pla n" drawi ng of Ri dge Park. Neither the pl

an n or t he deposi

tion testim

ony e stablis

hed wh ic h
en tity owne d, i nstal l ed or m

ai ntai ne d the f ence b etwee

n the track s an

d the park. At a heari ng on Metra's m

ot ion f or summ ary j udgme

nt, plai ntif fs argued that the exi stence of t he pa t h acr os s t he t ra cks meant t hat Bryanna was a "p er mitt ed" or "inte nded " us er , t hat t he
en d of f en ci ng ad j ac en t to the pa th s erv ed asan un mark ed cros si ng an d that the l

eg al sta tusof Brya nna was not that o f a trespass er. The trial court concl

uded that Bryan

na was a trespasser under section 18c-7503(a) of the Ill in ois Com me rcial Transportat ion L aw (Transportat ion L aw) (625 ILCS 5/18c-7503(a) (West 2000)). The Transport ation Law prohi bi ts walki ng on rai lroad pro pert y on or along the right of way ex cept at publi

c crossings. 625 ILCS 5/1 8c-7503( a) (West 200 0) . T he t rial co ur t ent er ed a n or der of su mmary judgment in favor of Me t ra and c ont inued t he pr o ce ed ing s a s t o t he pa r k d ist r ict
. T he co ur t lat er en t er ed an o r de ro f su mmar y jud gme nt in1-05-1 888 and 1-05- 3169, Co ns.

5

f av or of th e park

di stri ct. The appeals were consolida ted at plai ntif fs ' request. Three m

onths af ter plai ntif fs fi le d thei r appe l l ate bri ef

, Nel son v. Northeast Ill

in ois Regi onal Comm uter R.R. Co rp. , 364 Ill . App. 3d 1 81, 845 N. E. 2d 8 84 ( 200 6) , w as filed. The issue in Ne l son wa s w h eth er Metra owe d a du ty of c ar e und er t he fre que nt t re spa ss d oc t rine t o a 15- year- old girl who was injured by a tr ain as she
cross ed a ra

i l road track
. Ne l son , 36 4 Il l . A pp. 3d a t 184 . Pl ai nti f f s s ough t an d re ce i ve d lea ve of this court to ci

te Ne l son as s uppl em en tal authority. Pl ai

ntif f s f i l ed a s uppl em en tal bri ef wh ere they argue d f or the f i rst ti me tha t Bry an na wasa f reque nt trespas ser. Plai ntif fs fi rst argued: “Because Ne l son has e st ablished a dut y of o rd inary car e o wed by t he lando wner when t he fre que nt t re spa sser do ct rine is ap plicable, summary judg ment mu st be
rev erse d." Pl

ai ntif f s cl ai med th at “[t]h

e f reque nt trespas ser d

octri ne estab l i shes a

duty of ordi na ry care even if the danger was open

and obv ious” an d “[t]he f requent trespasser doctr in e establ is hes a du t y of o rd inary car e eve n wit h t he exist ence of t he [ Tr ansp or t at ion La w] .” Plaint iff s next
co nt ende d: “Defend ant -Ap pellee's ar gument s re gar ding t he law s et for t h in Ne l son are without
meri t.”Pl ai n ti f f s c l ai med th at “ Ne l son est ablishes t hat t he [ Lo cal Go ver nmenta l and Governm ental Empl oyees] Tort Immun

ity Act [(Tor t Imm

uni ty Ac t) (745 I LCS 10/3-102(a) ( We st 20 02 ) ) ] o nly c o ve r s d an ge r o us co nd it io ns o n t he pr o pe r t y, no t ac t ivit ies o n t he pr o pe r t y, and thus Me

tra cannot be i

mm uni zed by the [Tort Imm

uni ty] Act." Pl ai

ntif fs al so mai ntain ed that de f en da n ts’ argu men ts wer e “ wh oll y er ron eou s b ec au se

a tr i ab l e iss ue of mate rial f ac t ex i sts as to whet her a pa t h exist ed lea ding t o w her e Br yanna Ve ga c ro ssed t he t ra cks ” and “whet her Bryanna Vega shoul

d be consi dered a frequen

t t respasser.”1-05-1 888 and 1-05- 3169, Co ns.

6

Bec aus e plaint iff

s’ allega t ion t hat Bryanna was a fre que nt t re spa sser was ar gue d fo r t he f i rst ti me on a ppea l , i t is wai ve d. Haudrich

v. Howmedi

ca, Inc. , 169 Ill . 2d 525, 536, 662 N.E .2d 1248 (1996). Plai

ntif fs cann ot boot strap a frequen

t t respass theory

in to their cas e on appeal beca use t he fre que nt t re spa ss d oc t rine as ar t iculat ed in Ne l son was not a new enunc iatio n of t he law
. A fr eq ue nt t r es pa ss t he o ry co uld ha ve be en ar gu ed by p laint iffs a t t he o ut se t o f t his litigat ion. The co ur t in Ne l son re lied on t he es t ablished p rinciples s t at ed in McKinno n v. Nort heast Illi

nois Regi onal Comm uter R.R. Co rp. , 263 Ill . App. 3d 774, 777, 635 N.E. 2d 744 (1994), and the cases ci

ted in i t, incl udin g Mill er v. General

Moto rs Corp. , 207 Ill . App. 3d 148, 155, 565 N.E.2d 687 ( 1990), and Le e v . C h i ca go T ra n si t A uth ori ty , 152 Ill . 2d 432, 446-47, 605 N.E.2d 493 (1992). Despi te waiver, we wil

l a ddress plai

ntif fs ’ f requent trespass argume

nt. See Gei se v. Phoen

ix Co. o f Ch

ic ago, Inc. , 15 9 Il

l . 2d 507 , 51 4, 6 39 N .E.2 d 12 73 ( 199 4) (the rul e of wai ver i s a li mi tation on the parties, not the courts). Th e s t and ar d o f re view fo r o rd er s o f su mmar y judgm ent is de novo
. Out boa rd Mar ine Corp . v . Li

be rty Mu tua l In su ran ceCo. , 154 Il

l . 2d 90, 1 02, 607N.E.2d 1 204 (1 992). A mot ion fo r su mmary judgment sho uld be g ra nt ed w her e “t he plea dings, dep os itio ns, a nd ad m i ss i on s on f i l e, togeth er

wi th th e af f i da v i ts, i f an y , s h ow th

at th ere is n o gen ui n e iss ue as to any ma terial fact an d that t he m

ovin g party i s enti

tled to a judgm

ent as a m atter of law.” 735 ILC S 5 /2 -1 005 (c ) ( West 200 0) . Whe re a plaint iff offer s o nly conclus ions t hat ar e uns upp or t ed by f acts a dm i ssi bl e i n evi den ce, there is n

ot a gen ui ne i ssue of material f act to precl

ude s um mary j udgm en t. Le snik v. E st at e o f Le snik , 82 Il l . Ap p. 3d 11 02, 110 6, 403 N .E.2d 683 (1980 ). Na ke d al l eg ati

ons tha t are the con cl us i on of the pleade r do n

ot con trol the outc ome of

a m oti on1-05-1 888 and 1-05- 3169, Co ns.

7

f or sum mary j udgm en t. Dani els v . Weiss , 17 Il l . Ap p. 3d 29 4, 300, 3 08 N.E.2 d 46 (1 974). To succeed in

an acti on for negl

ige nce, the pl

ai ntif f m ust establi

sh that the def

endan t o wed a du t y of car e t o t he plaint iff , t he de fendant bre ache d t hat dut y and t he r esu lting injury t o t he pl ai ntif f wasproxi

matel y caus ed b y the b reach. Bonner v . City

of Chi cago , 334 Ill . App. 3d 481, 483, 778 N.E.2d 285 ( 2002). A def endan t wil l n ot be f ound negl ige nt unless the pl

ai ntif f can dem onstra te that a d uty wasowed. Sandoval

v. Ci ty of Ch ic ago , 357 Ill . App. 3d 1023, 1027, 830 N.E.2d 722 (2005). “W hether a du t y o f ca r e e xist s is a q ue st io n o f law , ap pr o pr iat ely determ i ne d by the tri al court on a m

otion f or su mmar y judgm

ent.” Sandoval , 357 Ill . App. 3d at 102 7. The plaint iff

must make a n affirmative s how ing fro m which the co ur t co uld infer t he
exi sten ce of a duty
. Schoondyke

v. Heil, Hei

l, Sm art & Golee, Inc. , 89 Ill . App. 3d 640, 643, 411 N. E. 2d 1 168 (1 980 ). Witho ut fact s fro m which the co ur t co uld infer t he exist ence of a dut y, t he pl ai ntif f could not rec over a

nd s um mary j udgm en t for th e def

endan t mu st be af f i rmed. Hill v. Ch i ca go H ous i n g A uth ori ty , 233 Il l . Ap p. 3d 92 3, 929, 5 99 N.E.2 d 1118 (1992 ). A review of the dut y owed by lan downers t o t respassers, incl uding f requent t respassers, app ear s in Mill

er v. General

Moto rs Corp. , 207 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 14 8, 153- 55, 565 N.E.2d 6 87 (19 90):

" It is well set t led t hat t he liabili t y of an o wner or oc cup ier o f land (land ow ner ) ha s bee n set in ter ms of du t y. Tho se w ho e nt er upo n l and are gene ra lly divided int o t hre e fixed ca t ego ries— t re spa sser s, licens ees , a nd in vi tees—and the l

andowner h

as speci fi c duties regardi

ng persons wi

thin each category. *** The lowest po in

t o n the ‘l egal -duty-owed’ scale i s the trespasser, defi ned1-05-1 888 and 1-05- 3169, Co ns.

8

as a p er son wh o en ter s or re mai n s u pon l an d i n th e p oss es si

on of an oth er wi th out a priv il ege to do so. [Citations.] *** [T]he general rule, sub je ct to several qua lif icat ions, is tha t a lando wner is not liable for injur y to a t re spa sser cau sed by t he la ndo wne r' s fa ilur e t o exe rc ise r ea so nab le c ar e t o pu t his lan d in a sa fe condi tion f or t he trespasser, or to carry on h is activ ities i n a m ann er which does not en dan ger the tresp ass er. [Ci

tations.]
*** From the general rule of n onli abili ty of a l andowner t o a t respasser, t he rest of t he law r ega rd ing t re spa sser s is a list o f excep t ions. The se e xcep t ions ha ve deve lop ed be cau se o f the co ncer n t hat human sa fet y oug ht t o be mor e impor t ant than the l andowner' s i

nterest in unrestricted f

reedom to use hi s own land as h e sees fi t. *** This rule applie s m ostly in the case of f

requent trespass upon a lim ited
area . [Ci tation .] Whe n a lan do wn er kn o ws , o rsho uld kn o w fr o m fac t s w it hin h is kno wledg e, t hat t re spa sser s ar e in the habit o f ent er ing his land at a pa rt icular po int or of trav ers i ng an are a of sm al l si ze , m an y cou rts h ol d that there

i s a duty of
re aso nable ca re t o d isco ver and p ro t ect t re spa sser s in the co ur se o f the l an dow ne r' s acti vi ti es . [C i tation. ] Th

i s d uty i s i m pos ed be ca us e the b urden of lo o king o ut fo r t re sp as se rs is no t gr ea t . A t ypica l ca se is t he fr eq ue nt us e o f a 'be at en p at h' t hat cr o ss es a r ailr o ad t ra ck , w hich is held t o impo se a d ut y of reasonabl e care as to t he operation of trai ns. [Ci tation.] *** Liab il

ity has b een1-05-1 888 and 1-05- 3169, Co ns.

9

extended in s

uch cases because the landowner's continued to leration of the trespass
am oun ts to perm

i ss i on to m ake u se of th e l an d, s o th at th

e p l ai n ti f f i s n ot a trespa sse r bu t a l i censee . [ Mentesan

a v. LaFranco , 73 Ill . App. 3d 204, 209, 391 N.E.2d 4 16 (19 79).]" Our sup re me co ur t affirmed t he vita lity of t he fre que nt t re spa ss exc ept ion in Lee , 15 2 I ll. 2d at 4 46-47: "Co urt s have *** f ound t hat the landowner owes a du ty of ordinary care to t hose wh o ar e fr eq ue nt t r es pa ss er s in a limit ed ar ea wh er e t he lan do wn er kn o ws o rsho uld kn o w o f t he ir constant in

trusion," ci

ting Berni er v . Il

l i noi s C en tral R.R . Co. , 296 Ill . 464, 471, 129 N.E . 747 (1921 ), and Res

tatem en t (Second) of

Torts §334 ( 1965)
. Law suit s ar ising fro m railro ad a ccide nt s have co nt ribut ed t o t he de velop ment o f the freq uent t re spa ss d oc t rine in Illinois. In Berni er , 2 96 I ll. at 471 , t he co ur t affirmed a jur y's finding tha t t he r ailro ad o wed a du t y to t he vict im who cr os sed t he r ailro ad's right of w ay on a cinder pat h t hat ped est rians ha d bee n in the ha bit o f using fo r mo re t han 10 years t o c ro ss t he t ra cks . I n Joy

v. Ch i cago, B url

i ng ton & Qui nc y R.R . Co. , 263 Ill . 465, 468, 105 N.E . 330 (19 14) , th e c ourt f

oun d that the l

aw i m pos ed a d uty on a rai l road to ke ep a l

ookout f or tres pa ss ers where i t knew or wa s cha

rge ab l e w i

th th e k now l edgetha t “ a c ons i de rabl e n

um be r of peopl e” i n a popul ous are a cross ed i

ts tracks f reque ntl y over a “c onsi derabl e peri

od of ti me." In Mc Da nie ls v. T er minal R
. R. Ass 'n o f St
. Lo uis , 302 Il l . Ap p. 332, 3 44-45 , 23 N.E.2 d 785 ( 1939) , the court deci ded that a rail road o wed a duty to a plai ntif f wh o was in jured b y a girder thrown from a vi aduct by rail road empl

oyees as the pla in tif f wal ked on a "wel

l-worn an d muc h traveled pathway."1-05-1 888 and 1-05- 3169, Co ns.

10

In Rod riguez v . Norf

ol k & W es tern Ry . Co. , 228 Ill . App. 3d 1024, 1026, 593 N.E. 2d 597 (1992), t he court deter mi ned that the rail

road did not owe a duty to a t respasser wh o was injured while walking a long t he r ailro ad t ra cks . T he evide nce a t t he jur y tr ial included t he testi m on y of wi tn es se s th at ch i l dren , te en

ag er s, ad ul ts a n d r ai l road w orker s u se d a

di rt p ath to
reach a nd c ross the track s. Rodriguez , 228 Ill . App. 3d at 1027. One witne ss sai d chi ldren had used the pat h " 'a h

alf dozen t im

es during the sum

mer.' " Rodriguez , 228 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 1027. An other s aid he

" ' som eti mes' " sa w ch i l dren cross i ng th e track s. Rodriguez , 228 Ill . App. 3d at 1029. A nothe r wi tnes s testi f i ed th at the p ath w as steep an d ove rgrown wi th we eds
. Rodriguez , 22 8 I ll. A pp . 3d at 10 30
. T he jur y fo un d in t he r ailr o ad 's f av o r . On ap pe al, t he pla int iff as ke d t his court to determ

i ne wh ethe r the ra i l road owed

the p l ai ntif f a duty to construct a f

ence a nd warn hi m of the open

and obv i ous da nge r. Rodriguez , 228 I ll . App. 3d at 1037. T he court found as a
matter of l

aw that the v

i cti m wasa tresp ass er to whom no duty wasowed. Rodriguez , 22 8 I ll. App. 3d a t 104 0. The co ur t 's ra t ionale w as t hat t he plaint iff was not on t he t ra cks at t he r ailro ad's reque st bu

t had en tered the prem

i ses wi thout perm

i ssi on. Rodriguez , 228 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 1039. "[P ]laint iff

st at ed t hat he vo lunt ar ily left t he pa rk ing lot near t he fru it st and a nd climbed t he emb ankm ent up a gra vel

path." Rodriguez , 228 Ill . App. 3d at 1039. "[A]n i ntruder who comes al ong the pos se ss or' s l

an d w i thou t hi s p erm i ss i on h asno r i gh t to dem an d that the p oss es sor pr o vid e h im wit h a sa fe p lac e t o t r es pa ss , o rt ha t t he po ss es so rpr o t ec t t he t r es pa ss er fr o m his
own wro ngful

use of the po ssessor's pro pert y." Rodriguez , 2 28 I ll. App. 3d a t 103 9, citing Mill er , 207 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 154. In 1 994 , t he co ur t in Mc K i nn on , 2 63 I ll. App. 3d a t 779 , a gain ap plied t he fre que nt t re spa ss exc ept ion. The victim was killed by a Met ra t ra in while cro ssing r ailro ad t ra cks . R elying1-05-1 888 and 1-05- 3169, Co ns.

11

on Mill er , Lee and t heir ant ece dent s, t he co ur t co nclude d t hat t he allega t ions in t he plaint iff 's complai nt were suffi

cien t t o set forth a cause o f action f or negligen

ce under the frequent t respass ex cepti on to the ge

neral rule tha t no duty i s owed to trespas sers . Mc K

i nn on , 263 Ill . App. 3d at 779 . T he plaint iff

alleged in her co mplaint t hat " 't he de fendant 's right of w ay *** was in a den se l y popul ate d a re a, ea si l y ac ce ss i b l e to th e pub l i c, an

d p ar ti cul arl y ac ce ss i b l e a n d i n v i ti n g to pe r so ns c o nd uc t ing bu sine ss o ren ga gin g in r ec r ea t io na l o rge ne r al a ct ivit ies wh o fo un d it necessary to cross t he tracks in the area.' " Mc K i nn on , 2 63 Ill. App . 3 d a t 77 5. Th e p laint iff furt her alleged t hat t he de fendant " 'for a long t ime prio r t o t he da t e in que st ion p er mitt ed a nd allowe d r eside nt s and ot her per so ns t o c ome u po n and c ro ss it s ea sily -a cce ssible right -o f-wa y, and it bec ame t he cu st om and habit o f per so ns t o w alk o nt o, upo n and a cr os s t he r ight -o f-wa y and th at a s a re su l t th er e w er e n

um erous re gul ar we l l -w orn

pa th s on th e ri gh t-of -w ay an d i ts embankment s o n eithe r side of t he t ra cks leading t o a nd fro m vario us bu siness e st ablishments and homes.’ " Mc K

i nn on , 2 63 I ll. App. 3d a t 775 . T he plaint iff asse rt ed t hat Met ra knew or , in t he
exercise of ordi n ar y ca rean d c au ti on , s h oul

d h av e k n own th at p edestrians w ere accus tom ed to
cross i ng th e track s. Mc K

i nn on , 263 I ll . App. 3d at 775. T he court applied the frequent t respass exception: "It is apparent fro m the [supreme] court 's recent reference to the [frequent t respass]
exce pt ion [ in Lee ] that *** t he ex ception rem

ai ns good law i

n Il li nois .” Mc K

i nn on , 263 Ill . App. 3d at 77 9. In 2 006 , t his co ur t in Ne l son f urthe r ref i ne d the f reque nt trespas s doctri

ne . Ne l son, 364 Ill. App . 3 d at 188 . T her e, a 15 -year -o ld plaint iff was st ru ck by a t ra in while tr esp assing o n t he def endan t's ra i l road tracks. Ne l son , 364 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 183. Her com

plai nt al l eged that Me tra
was negligent in op er at ing its t ra in and failing to maintain fence s o r ba rr iers t o p re vent t re spa ssing1-05-1 888 and 1-05- 3169, Co ns.

12

on i ts right-of -way and tracks
. Ne l son , 3 64 I ll. App. 3d a t 183 . I n her disco ver y depo sitio n, t he pl ai n ti f f testi f i ed th at sh e r each

ed th e track b

y wa y of a p ath th at sh e a

n d h er f rien dsus ed dai l y to
com m ute to and f rom s chool. Ne l son , 364 Ill . App. 3d at 184. The defen dant fi le d and the trial court deni

ed a m ot ion f or summ ary j udgme

nt. The trial

court certif

ie d two quest ions

for review under Supreme Cour t Rule 308 (134 I ll . 2d R. 3 08) (an interlocuto ry order t hat inv olves a potential l y conten tious question of l aw m ay be appe aled at th e di scre

tion of the app el

l ate court). The first que st ion wa s: “ 'I s t he r isk o f cro ssing a r ailro ad t ra ck o n which t ra ins may be operating an open

and obv ious peri l f or which a rail road/o perator owes no duty of care, regardles s of the l

egal status o f the i

ndi vi dual crossin g the track?’ ” Ne l son, 364 Ill . App. 3d at 183 . T he co ur t held: " any op en and obvio us r isk in cro ssing t he r ailro ad t ra ck d id no t nega t e t he [railroad's] duty *** under t he f requent t respass doct rine." Ne l son , 3 64 I ll. App. 3d a t 184 . T he second questi on was: " 'U nder §3-102(a) of the [Tort Imm uni ty Ac t (745 ILCS 10/3-102(a) (West 20 02 ))] , do es

a l oca l pu b l i c en ti ty' s d uty to ex ercise ordi n ar y ca reto m ai n tai n i ts prop er ty in a rea so nably safe co ndit ion fo r “int ende d and per mitt ed u ser s” a pply o nly to pas sive co ndit ions of the prem

is es or does such duty al

so apply to activ ities or operat ions

conducted on the premises by the local publ ic entity ?' ” Ne l son , 36 4 I l l . A

pp . 3d at 1 83 -8 4. S ec ti on

3- 10 2( a) pr ov i de s th

at a lo ca l pu blic e nt it y has a " du t y t o exe rc ise o rd inar y ca re " t o ke ep it s p ro pe rt y in "a r ea so nab ly safe cond i tion " f or the us e of

the p eople wh

om th e en tity "i nten ded a nd p erm i tted" to use th

e proper ty. 745 ILC S 1 0/ 3- 102 (a ) ( West 200 0) . T he co ur t in Ne l son con cl ud ed : " se cti

on 3- 10 2( a) i

m m un i ty applie s where the f

oll owing two requirem

ents are m

et: (1) t he i

nj ured party was n

ot an i ntended
and perm i tted user of th

e proper ty;and (2) th e i

nj ury arose f rom th e con di tion of the proper

ty. Se cti on 3- 10 2( a) i

m m un i ty doe s n ot ap pl y wh ere th e i n j uri es arose f rom an unsaf e acti v i ty1-05-1 888 and 1-05- 3169, Co ns.

13

conduct ed on ot herwise saf e pro pert y." Ne l son , 364 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 190. Her e we must co nclude t hat Met ra did no t ow e a d ut y of car e t o B ryanna u nder t he freq uent t re spa ss d oc t rine. The cas es w e have re viewed sho w t hat t he ke y facts t o be alleged by plaint iff s wishing t o invo ke t he fre que nt t re spa ss d oc t rine in a ca se a rising fro m a railro ad a ccide nt include t he exist ence of a "bea t en" o r "w ell-wo rn" p at h, e vidence of a co nst ant intr usio n on t he
ra ilroa d’s p ro per t y by pedes t rians w ho ha d a c ust om o f cro ssing t he r ight -o f-wa y or t ra cks and
ev ide nc e t ha t t he r ailr o ad kn ew o f an d t o ler at ed t he cir cu mst an ce . We kn o w fr o m Rodriguez that the doctr in

e does not im

pose a duty where the pl

ai ntif f al le ged onl y tha t adults and ch

il dren "som eti mes" use d a s teep an

d wee dy path to reach the ra i l road tracks. Rodriguez , 228 Ill . App. 3d at 1027. The evi den ce h ere showe d no b eaten

or wel l -worn p ath. N o one tes tif i ed th at there

were constant in

trusions on the ri

ght of way

or t hat people h

ad a custom of crossi

ng the tracks to reach the pa rk. Th e te sti

mony of the Metra a nd pa rk d i stri ct w i tne ss estha

t the y were u na wa re of pe de st ria n cr o ss ings wa s u nco nt ro ver t ed by pla int iffs. Th e s ca nt evid enc e r elied o n by pla int iffs sh owe d on l y th at th e W ar re n b oy s " som

eti mes " too k a

sh ortcut th at l ed th em acros s th e tracksto the pa rk. Ev en when vi ew ed i n th e l i gh t most f av orabl e to p l ai

nti f f s, th e evi de nc e doesnot sup po rt t he co nclusio n t hat Met ra ow ed B ryanna a dut y under t he fre que nt t re spa ss exc ept ion. Pla int iffs n ex t maint aint ha t t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed in r elying o n t he T r an sp o r t at io n La w in det er mini ng t hat Met ra ow ed no dut y to Bryanna . T he T ra nspo rt at ion La w pr ovid es t hat "no person m ay wal k, ride, dri

ve or be upon or along the ri ght of way

or rail ya rd of a rail

carrier withi n the Stat e, at a place other t han a publ ic crossin g." 625 I LCS 5/18c-75 03(1)( a)(i) (West 2000). It is undisputed that Bryann a crossed at a place other t han a publ ic crossin g. She was a1-05-1 888 and 1-05- 3169, Co ns.

14

trespasser and the Trans

port ation Law appl

ie s here. There was

no error in the court's fi

ndi ng that the Transpo rtat ion Law prohib ited Bryann a from crossing the tracks. Pl ai ntif f s al so argue tha

t unde r Ne l son , the Tor t Imm

uni ty Ac t (745 ILCS 10/3-102(a) (West 2000)) cann

ot im mun iz e Metra from l

ia bi li ty be cause Bry

ann a's i nj ury was caused by

an acti vi ty on the property

—the ne gli gen t operati on of

a trai n—n ot a condi tion of the proper

ty. T his c laim w as no t st at ed in p laint iffs' co mpla int an d it is a r gu ed fo rt he firs t t ime o n a pp ea l. I t is wai ve d. Haudrich

, 169 Ill . 2d at 536. Waiv er asi de, section 3-102(a) of the Tort Immun ity Act pr ovid es t hat a pu blic entit y “has t he du t y to exer cise o rd inary car e t o maint ain its p ro per t y in a
re as on ab l y saf e c on di ti on f or th e u se i n th e ex ercise

of ordi n ar y ca reof pe opl e w h om th e en ti ty i nten ded a nd p erm i tted to use the

property .” 745 ILCS 10/3-1 02(a) (We st 2000 ). The exi sten ce of a legal duty and the exi sten ce of i m m uni ty a re se parate i ssues. Ro mine v. Village o f Irving , 336 Ill . App. 3d 624, 627, 783 N.E. 2d 1064 (2003). The Tor t Imm uni ty Ac t does n ot im pose n ew du tie s on a pub l i c en tity
. Ro mine , 3 36 I ll. App. 3d a t 627 . “ ‘T he dis tinction between an

im mun ity and a duty

is crucia l, b ecause onl

y i f a duty is found is the i ssue of whether an

im mun ity or defens e i s avai

la ble to t he governm

ental entity considered[.]’ ” Ro mine , 336 Ill . App. 3d at 627, quo ting Zimme r man v. Villa ge o f Sk o kie , 183 Ill . 2d 30, 46, 697 N. E.2 d 6 99 (1 99 8) . H er e, de f en da n ts o we d n o du ty to Br yan n a, a tres pa ss er . Th

e i m m un i ty question i s nev er rea

ch ed. We now turn to pla i ntif f s'appe al of the order of

sum mary j udgm en t in f av or of th e park dis trict. Plai ntif fs rais ed no i ssues as

to the park dis

trict in their s upple me ntal b rief , so our review covers onl

y the is sues rai sed i

n pl ai ntif fs ' f irst bri ef. Pl ai ntif fs argue: (1) an i ssue of f

act exi sts as to whether the dan

gers of crossi

ng the rai lroad tracks were open and obv ious to Bryan

na; (2) an1-05-1 888 and 1-05- 3169, Co ns.

15

issue o f fact exist s as t o w het her t he pa rk dist rict act ed in a w ilf ul and w ant on manne r a s t o t he tru n ca ted f en ce ; an d ( 3) th e p ar

k di str i ct c an n ot es ca pe l i ab i l i ty un der the T ort I m

m un i ty A ct. To support the i

r f i rst con tention, pl

ai ntif f s arg ue th at under Corc oran

v. Vi l l ag e of Libe r t yville , 73 Il

l . 2d 31 6, 3 25 , 38 3 N .E. 2d

17 7 ( 19 78 ), a

pr ope rty own er owe s a du ty of ca reto childre n when t he o wner kno ws o r sho uld k now t hat " 'you ng childr en habit ually frequ ent t he vi ci ni ty' " of a " ' dan gerous agen cy .' " (Em

phasi s om i tted.) Corcor an , 7 3 I ll. 2d a t 325 , q uo t ing Kah n v . Ja mesBu rton Co. , 5 . I ll. 2d 6 14, 625 , 1 26 N .E .2 d 83 6 ( 195 5) In Corcor an , t he su pr eme cou rt f oun d that the p l ai

nti f f ha d n ot al l eg ed "s uf f i ci en t rel evan t f ac ts to d es cri

be the con di ti on *** for t he trial court t o co ncl ude that the condition exposes chil dren to risks greater t han those which normal

ly att end their daily

li ves." Corcor an , 73 Il

l . 2d at 3 28. See

also Bene

mon v . Soo Li ne R.R . Co. , 2 94 I ll. App. 3d 8 5, 96, 689 N. E. 2d 3 66 ( 199 7) (w her e t he pa rt ies' submissio ns did n ot establ is h that the defe

ndan t knew or should h

ave kn own that chi ldren

frequen ted the area, the p l ai ntif f could not establ

i sh a duty of c are owe d by

the def endan t). Here, plai ntif fs fai le d to al le ge suf

fi ci ent relev

ant facts to show that young ch il dren h ab i tual l y f re qu en ted th e tracksan

d th at th e p ar k di str i ct k n ew or sh oul d h av e k n own th at a cond i tion ex posed chi l dren to a hi ghe r than usua l ri sk of i nj ury . Plaint iff s next allege t hat a qu est ion o f fact exist s as t o w het her t he pa rk dist rict ’s ac t ions or inactions were wilf

ul a nd wan to n. Under se ction 3-106 of the Tort Immun ity Act, a local publ i c enti

ty i s i m m une f rom l i ab i l i ty f or i njuri eson l an d i nte nd ed an d pe rm i tted to b e u se d f

or re cr ea ti on al pu rp ose s u n l es s th e p l ai n ti f f s c an sh ow th at wi l f ul an d w an ton con du ct b y th e en ti ty pr ox i mate l y ca us ed th e i n j ur y . 74 5 I LC S 1 0/ 3- 10 6 ( W est 20 00 ). B ut " wh en th e p l ai n ti f f f ai l s to ple ad fac ts or alle gations that the landowner en gaged i n an y i ntentiona l a ct or knew of other1-05-1 888 and 1-05- 3169, Co ns.

16

injuries o r a ccide nt s ca use d by t he allege dly dange ro us c ond itio n, his co nduc t do es no t rise t o t he lev el of wi lf ul an d wanto n conduct. " Sala

zar v. Crown Enterprise s, Inc. , 328 Ill . App. 3d 735, 741, 767 N.E.2d 366 ( 2002). Plai ntif fs have not pled f

acts to show that the park distri ct was responsi ble for the f

ence that Bry

ann a and h er uncl es ci rcumv ented. Nor did the park di strict ha ve an obl i gation to i

nstal l a f ence to ba

rri cade i ts property

f rom th e rai l road ri ght-of -way. Foreman v. Consolida

ted Rail Corp. , 21 4 I l l . A

pp . 3d 70 0, 7 08 , 57 4 N .E. 2d

17 8 ( 19 91 ) (" to impose a du t y on a municipa lity to er ect fences on a ll l and a djace nt t o r ailro ad p ro per t y wou ld be i ntol erab l e"). Fi na l l y , pl ai ntif f s cl ai m that the park d i stri ct can not esc ape l

i ab i l i ty u nde r the Tort Imm uni ty Ac t. 745 ILCS 10/3-102(a) (West 2000). We rel y on our earl

ie r anal ys is of thi s i ssue: the q ues tion of i m m uni ty d oes n ot ari se u nl ess i t has be en shown that there

i s a d uty owed. Ro mine , 336 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 627. The Tort Im

m uni ty A ct does n ot im pose d uti es b ut onl y conf ers i m m uni tie s. McCuen

v. Peoria Park Di strict , 245 Ill . App. 3d 694, 698-99, 615 N.E . 2d 764 (1993). Summ

ary j udgme

nt in fav or o f the park district was appropriate. The j udgme

nt of the ci

rcuit court is af

fi rmed. Af f i rmed. McB RIDE, P.J ., and GA

RCIA, J., con

cur.