Court Opinion

ID: 9736468
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:57:46.989019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:06.868270
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, specially concurring: I concur in the majority’s order affirming the trial court and write specially only as to defendant Bart Wilson, the tenant of the farm property. Plaintiffs’ appeal is only with respect to defendant Bart Wilson. No issue is raised as to judgment in favor of John, Sheri, Kristie, and Kevin Williams, the owners of the property. Bart Wilson is the tenant on the property owned by the Williamses. Wilson had not harvested the beans that surrounded an erosion drainage hole to avoid damage to his combine, and as the majority states “to serve as a visual reminder.” 359 Ill. App. 3d at 385. As the majority points out and the trial court stated in its October 5, 2004, order, Tyler, then 13 years old, “while driving 30 miles per hour, he intentionally drove into the standing beans for the express purpose of destroying them.” At the time he was in defendant’s field, he was a trespasser. There was at least one “No Trespassing” sign placed on the premises. Plaintiffs’ argument that defendant Wilson’s conduct was willful and malicious is utterly without merit. Filing a lawsuit by parents of a 13-year-old child that the parents entrust with an ATV( to do as he pleases, is not what our system of justice should be about. Where there is an abuse of our justice system, our review process should give serious consideration to impose sanctions. A review of the facts show the child knew the definition of “trespassing.” Cynthia Morris, Tyler’s mother, stated in her deposition that they did not have permission to use the field and she never talked to Tyler about it. Mark Morris, the father, told Tyler he could ride in the field and that the unharvested beans that were left were waste. Mark Morris’s deposition shows he never talked to the owner of the property and that he knew that he did not have permission to be on defendant’s property but approved of Tyler being on the field. The child testified that he did not know if dad had permission and his permission came from “my dad.” As the trial court stated, “There is nothing in the allegations of this complaint that make the conduct of either the landowner or the farmer/occupant willful or malicious.” Section 11 — 1427(f) also makes it clear that it is unlawful to operate an ATV “[o]n private property, without the written or verbal consent of the owner or lessee thereof.” 625 ILCS 5/11 — 1427(f) (West 2002). The depositions of plaintiffs make it clear they knew they did not have permission to be on the property and knew the child was trespassing.