Opinion ID: 2077462
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Counts V and VII

Text: In count V, a survival action, plaintiffs allege that because of various acts of negligence on the part of defendant, particularly the failure to warn, decedent was unable to see the stopped train until it was too late to avoid the collision. In count VII, a wrongful death action, plaintiffs make the same allegations, and further allege that defendant was negligent in starting the train after the initial collision in that defendant should have discovered that a collision or some other unusual event had occurred. With the exception of one allegation, subparagraph 6.F of count VII, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of counts V and VII.
We first address the alleged negligence with respect to the initial collision. The parties correctly focus on the issue of a railroad's duty to motorists approaching a standing train at a crossing. Illinois courts have followed the longstanding rule that a train stopped at a crossing is generally held to be adequate notice and warning of its presence to any traveler who is in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety, and the railroad is under no duty to give additional signs, signals or warnings. See Petricek v. Elgin, J. & E. Ry. Co. (1959), 21 Ill. App.2d 60, 65 (and cases cited therein); see also Langston v. Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. (1947), 398 Ill. 248, 255. The exception to the general rule is that more warnings may be required if special circumstances are present. There is no fixed rule as to what constitutes special circumstances. Circumstances which courts have recognized as special or extraordinary include a blinding snowstorm ( Petricek, 21 Ill. App.2d 60) and malfunctioning warning lights which erroneously indicated that the crossing was clear ( Langston, 398 Ill. 248). In contrast, it has been held that darkness, heavy fog and poor visibility do not constitute special circumstances. Bachman v. Illinois Central R.R. Co. (1971), 132 Ill. App.2d 277. In discussing the rule and its exception, the court in Petricek explained that because of the blinding snowstorm, plaintiff could not see the standing train. Therefore it did not serve as a warning or notice to him of the train's presence, and the general rule did not apply. (21 Ill. App.2d at 66.) The court emphasized that perceptibility is an important element in the general rule, and implicitly held that if the train is not perceptible to one exercising ordinary care, the railroad may be liable. Plaintiffs in the case at bar contend that the Petricek court's emphasis on perceptibility shows that the Illinois law on this subject has somehow been modified. We disagree. The court in Petricek, after reviewing prior Illinois decisions, clearly stated that one cannot recover for driving his automobile into a train standing across a crossing, except under extraordinary or unusual circumstances. 21 Ill. App.2d at 66. Plaintiffs' principal contention is that the traditional common law rule stated in Petricek is inconsistent with the doctrine of pure comparative negligence adopted in Alvis v. Ribar (1981), 85 Ill.2d 1. This is so, according to plaintiffs, because under the traditional rule, a plaintiff is barred from any recovery if he was negligent in failing to discover the stopped train, yet under comparative negligence principles, a plaintiff's recovery is only reduced to the extent his negligence caused the injury. It follows, plaintiffs contend, that a railroad has a duty to provide warnings sufficient to alert the negligent motorist of the presence of the stopped train. Plaintiffs also contend that even if the traditional rule applies, they have sufficiently pleaded the existence of special circumstances. Defendant contends that the doctrine of comparative negligence does not expand or otherwise alter a railroad's duty, and that plaintiffs' complaint fails to allege the existence of special circumstances. We turn now to an examination of the specific allegations of counts V and VII. Subparagraphs 6.A, 6.B, and 6.C of both counts V and VII allege that the defendant was negligent in the following ways: A. Failed to provide automatic flashers or flares or a flagman to warn motorists of the presence of a stopped rail car notwithstanding the fact that the defendant periodically stopped rail cars on said crossing during hours of darkness, the vehicular traffic, the lack of lighting at the crossing, the grades of the crossing and the general condition of the crossing that the crossing was extrahazardous. B. Periodically stopped rail cars on the crossing during hours of darkness even though the defendant knew or should have known that the conditions of the crossing were such that it was difficult for a motorist to see a rail car parked at the crossing during the hours of darkness an adequate distance back from the crossing to safely stop before striking the parked rail car. C. Failed to maintain the crossing in such a condition that a motorist's attention would not be unnecessarily diverted and in such a condition that unnecessary distractions were not placed upon a motorist's attention and in such a manner that a motorist would not receive the false illusion that a train was not blocking the crossing with the result that in violation of Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 114, Section 62, a motorist could not safely cross during the hours of darkness. The appellate court ruled that each of these allegations is conclusory. We disagree. Under the principles set forth by this court in People ex rel. Fahner v. Carriage Way West, Inc. (1981), 88 Ill.2d 300, and Knox College v. Celotex Corp. (1981), 88 Ill.2d 407, we think the foregoing allegations sufficiently allege ultimate facts, not conclusions. (See also Cain v. American National Bank & Trust Co. (1975), 26 Ill. App.3d 574, 578 (in determining whether a complaint states facts or conclusions, the complaint must be considered as a whole and not in its disconnected parts).) However, we affirm the dismissal of these three subparagraphs on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action for common law negligence with respect to the initial collision. We will first examine the complaint under the special circumstances doctrine. We address below plaintiffs' contention that the adoption of comparative negligence dictates that we abandon the special circumstances doctrine. We conclude that plaintiffs have failed to allege the existence of special circumstances which would excuse decedent from discovering the train standing on the crossing. Stripped to its essentials, the three paragraphs at issue allege the following as special circumstances: darkness; the presence of vehicular traffic at the crossing; the absence of lighting at the crossing; the grade of the crossing; and unnecessary distractions in the vicinity of the crossing. The lack of lighting and the presence of traffic are simply insufficient as a matter of law to constitute special circumstances. Such circumstances are present at numerous crossings throughout the State, and neither statutory authority nor case law requires lighting at every crossing. The fact that the crossing is used by vehicular traffic in no way affects a motorist's ability to see a standing train. The remaining circumstances alleged relate to the condition of the crossing itself  the grade of the crossing and the unnecessary distractions. It is clear that these allegations are related to similar allegations in counts VI and VIII, which allege the defendant violated certain rules promulgated by the Illinois Commerce Commission concerning crossings. In counts V and VII, plaintiffs apparently maintain that defendant had a common law duty to construct and maintain the crossing in such a way as to promote visibility of standing trains. We disagree. Whether the source of the duty to maintain the crossing in certain specified ways is statutory or the common law, we conclude, for the reasons stated below in our discussion of counts VI and VIII, that the violation of those duties in this case has nothing to do with decedent's collision. In short, the conditions alleged in the complaint do not, either alone or in combination, constitute special circumstances. The statute cited by plaintiffs in subparagraph 6.C imposes on railroads the duty to construct and maintain crossings so that at all times they shall be safe as to persons and property. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 114, par. 62.) The general language of this statute cannot be read as imposing a duty on defendant to provide additional warnings of the presence of a stopped train. As for subparagraph 6.B, plaintiffs contend that the fact that this was a planned, nonemergency stop at the crossing somehow imposes on defendant a greater duty to warn. Plaintiffs cite no authority for this contention, and we reject it. The remaining allegation in count VII related to the failure to warn is subparagraph 6.F. This is the only allegation in count VII that the appellate court's decision left standing. It alleges that defendant was negligent in that the train crew failed to post a flagman or to ignite flares at the rear of the stopped train. Plaintiffs state in their briefs in this court, although not in the complaint, that this allegation is relevant because decedent initially was traveling parallel to the train tracks. Thus had a flagman or flares been present, he might have been alerted to the presence of the train as he was traveling alongside it. The appellate court found that plaintiffs did not waive any error in the dismissal of this allegation. The court did not explain the basis for its implicit ruling that the allegation states a cause of action. We think it debatable whether plaintiff waived error with respect to this allegation. However, we find that the circuit court correctly dismissed subparagraph 6.F for the reason that the failure to provide warning devices at the rear of the train has nothing to do with decedent's collision into the side of the train. Whether analyzed in terms of duty or in terms of proximate cause, the result is the same. The evident purpose of such warnings is to alert other trains to the presence of a stopped train, not to alert motorists. Plaintiffs in their brief discuss subparagraph 6.F in a single paragraph, and they cite no authority to support the proposition that a railroad has a duty to provide warnings at the rear of a train for the benefit of motorists approaching the side of a train at a crossing. We decline to impose such a duty. Similarly, the lack of warnings at the rear of a train cannot, as a matter of law, be the proximate cause of a motorist's collision into the side of a stopped train at a crossing. For these reasons, we reverse that portion of the appellate court's ruling which reversed the circuit court's dismissal of subparagraph 6.F of count VII. Finally, we note that the motion to dismiss was directed to plaintiffs' third amended complaint, and that numerous depositions had already been taken. In these circumstances, further amendment of the complaint likely would have been futile. Thus the circuit court did not err in dismissing with prejudice that portion of the complaint alleging negligence with respect to the failure to warn of the train's presence. See Village of Lake in the Hills v. Illinois Emcasco Insurance Co. (1987), 153 Ill. App.3d 815, 818; Reardon v. Ford Motor Co. (1972), 7 Ill. App.3d 338, 345-46. For all these reasons, we hold that the complaint fails to allege the existence of special circumstances which would take the case out of the general rule that a stopped train is itself adequate warning to a motorist of the train's presence. Accordingly, the complaint fails to state a cause of action for common law negligence with respect to the initial collision.
We next address plaintiffs' theory, found at subparagraphs 6.D and 6.E of count VII, that defendant was negligent in starting up the train after the collision. The complaint alleges that decedent was still alive after the collision and potential rescuers were at the scene, and that the train crew in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, prior to starting the train, that a collision or some other unusual event had occurred at the crossing. Specifically, the complaint alleges the train crew was negligent in failing to give an audible warning of the pending movement of the train, failing to exercise an adequate lookout prior to starting the train, and failing to exercise an adequate lookout forward prior to starting the train. The appellate court ruled that plaintiffs waived their contention that the circuit court erred in dismissing subparagraphs 6.D and 6.E of count VII. As with counts I through IV, defendant in its motion to dismiss clearly addressed the foregoing allegations. Defendant contended that the complaint did not allege a factual basis for imposing a duty to look forward prior to starting the train. Defendant also asserted that the purpose of an interrailroad rule requiring an audible warning signal prior to departure is to provide a warning for the train crew, and that the rule was not intended for the protection of motorists at crossings. We have examined the briefs filed in the appellate court and agree with that court that the plaintiffs' opening brief contains no argument whatsoever concerning subparagraphs 6.D. and 6.E. of count VII, and that accordingly, plaintiffs waived any error in the circuit court's dismissal of these subparagraphs.
We turn to a consideration of the effect on this case of the doctrine of comparative negligence. The parties, as well as the amicus curiae, devoted the major portion of their arguments to this issue. The appellate court was of the opinion that the traditional rule governing this type of case  that a standing train is notice of its presence to a traveler in the exercise of ordinary care, unless special circumstances exist  is inconsistent with the doctrine of pure comparative negligence. (We note that the legislature has adopted a modified form of comparative negligence. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2-1116.) The provision became effective November 25, 1986.) Accordingly, the appellate court implicitly ruled that the traditional rule is no longer good law. We disagree. The appellate court supported its view with an example of a motorist speeding along a city street after dark at 50 miles per hour. If the motorist crashes into the side of a stopped train at a crossing, he is precluded from recovery if the train would have been visible to a motorist exercising ordinary care. The court stated: Yet warning devices better designed to get a motorist's attention  such as flashing lights  could have alerted the speeding motorist to the presence of the train and thus prevented the collision. It follows that in such a case, the lack of additional warning devices may be the proximate cause of the collision. (162 Ill. App.3d at 113.) According to the appellate court, a holding that this motorist is barred from recovering because of his lack of ordinary care for his own safety amounts to a holding that he is barred from recovering because he was contributorily negligent. The appellate court's error is its failure to analyze separately the elements of duty and proximate cause. To be sure, it is sometimes difficult to separate the two concepts (see generally W. Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 42, at 272-75 (5th ed. 1984)), but we perceive no such difficulty here. In fact, the appellate court did not address the duty element at all; instead, the court focused on causation. It may be said that additional warnings could have prevented the collision in the appellate court's example. But it is erroneous to conclude, as the appellate court implicitly did, that because additional warnings could have prevented the collision, the railroad had a duty to provide additional warnings. The analysis is flawed because unless a duty is owed, there is no negligence. And the existence of a duty is a question of law for the court to determine. Curtis v. County of Cook (1983), 98 Ill.2d 158, 163. We agree with defendant that under the appellate court's reasoning, it follows that: (1) a defendant's duty is conditioned on the plaintiff's conduct; and (2) a railroad has a duty to anticipate and guard against the negligence of others. Neither of these propositions is supportable. We hold today that the adoption of comparative negligence does not expand or otherwise alter the duty owed by a railroad to motorists approaching a standing train at a crossing. This court has not had occasion to squarely address the issue presented. In Clarkson v. Wright (1985), 108 Ill.2d 129, 133-34, we held that evidence of failure to wear a seat belt is inadmissible with respect to either the question of liability or the question of damages. We analyzed the issue in terms of a plaintiff's duty. We observed that there was no statutory duty to wear a seat belt and that the presence of the seat belt in the automobile did not create a duty to wear it. In addition, we found no authority which imposed on plaintiff the duty to anticipate and guard against defendant's negligence. (108 Ill.2d at 133.) Clearly, the same principle applies to a defendant's duty. Contrary to the appellate court's view, defendant had no duty in this case to anticipate and guard against decedent's negligence. The decisions of our appellate court since the adoption of comparative negligence, while not addressing the issue directly, have assumed that comparative negligence principles neither changed the traditional rules defining a defendant's duty, nor relieved a plaintiff of the duty to exercise ordinary care. Frankenthal v. Grand Trunk Western R.R. Co. (1983), 120 Ill. App.3d 409, 415 (defendant railroad's engineer had the right to assume that motorists approaching the tracks would exercise due care for their own safety); Carroll v. Commonwealth Edison Co. (1986), 147 Ill. App.3d 909 (no duty on defendant landowner to warn plaintiff invitee of an open and obvious condition); Lohan v. Walgreens Co. (1986), 140 Ill. App.3d 171 (no duty on defendant landowner to warn plaintiff invitee of natural accumulations of ice, snow or water). Other jurisdictions have expressly held that the advent of comparative negligence did not change the duty owed by a defendant. Thompson v. Stearns Chemical Corp. (Iowa 1984), 345 N.W.2d 131, 134; Britt v. Allen County Community Junior College (1982), 230 Kan. 502, 505, 638 P.2d 914, 917, overruled in part on other grounds, Bowers v. Ottenad (1986), 240 Kan. 208, 729 P.2d 1103. Although not expressed in the foregoing decisions, our rejection of an expansion of a railroad's duty rests primarily on policy grounds. The law imposes a duty on all persons to exercise ordinary care. We believe that the imposition of a general duty to anticipate and guard against the negligence of others would place an intolerable burden on society. In the situation presented by the case at bar, a railroad would never know, until after an accident had occurred, whether the measures it had taken to warn motorists were sufficient to discharge its duty. We decline to adopt a rule which would place such a burden on railroads. In sum, we are persuaded that the adoption of comparative negligence principles did not alter the duty owed by a railroad to motorists approaching a standing train, and we reject the appellate court's view to the contrary.