Opinion ID: 2215737
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Place of Danger Exception

Text: The plaintiff does not contend that Carl's head injury was caused by a condition of ICG's premises or by any activities conducted thereon by ICG. Nor does the plaintiff argue that Carl, by virtue of his presence on the premises, was in any danger of being injured by a condition or activity on the premises, such as a moving train or a high voltage rail. Rather, the only basis advanced for a finding that Carl was discovered in a place of danger on ICG's premises is the fact that Carl was discovered on the premises in an injured condition. The place of danger exception does not arise simply because a trespasser is discovered in an injured state on the landowner's premises. The place of danger exception is a premises liability concept which defines when a property owner or occupier can be held liable for injuries that a trespasser suffers as a result of a condition or activity on the property. A place of danger thus denotes a place which, by reason of a condition or activity on the premises, risks harm to anyone who is present, whether previously injured or not. It must be the condition or activity on the land that makes it a place of danger, not the mere presence of a person in an injured state. For instance, a trespasser discovered by a railroad on the tracks in the path of the railroad's moving train would properly be considered to be in a place of danger such that the railroad owed him a duty of ordinary care to avoid injury to him. See Higgins v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 16 Ill.App.2d 227, 230, 147 N.E.2d 714 (1958). To accept the plaintiff's interpretation would render all premises places of danger once an injured trespasser arrives there. Moreover, a place of danger would move wherever the injured trespasser happened to move, regardless of the condition of the premises and the degree of caution taken by the owner to prevent injury to others on the property. An otherwise safe place could alternatively be both a place of danger and not a place of danger as an injured trespasser moves back and forth across the property line. Here, Carl was not discovered in a place on ICG's premises where a condition or activity on the premises posed a danger to him. To the contrary, Carl was discovered in what must be considered the relatively safe location (given that the outside temperature was below freezing) of the ICG warming house. We do not agree that this safe location was transformed into a place of danger by the mere fortuity that an injured trespasser came to rest there. In sum, we reject the plaintiff's contention that the place of danger exception is applicable to this case. If Carl was a trespasser, the only duty owed to him by ICG under a premises liability theory was the duty to refrain from willfully and wantonly injuring him. The trial court therefore erred in holding that ICG owed a duty of ordinary care to Carl even if he was a trespasser on ICG's premises. C.