Court Opinion

ID: 9859940
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:00:13.62606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:09:59.092100
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE RAKOWSKI, dissenting: Assuming, arguendo, that Vincent Rodriguez was a trespasser, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Rodriguez failed to establish that he fit into the “permissive use” exception to the rule. Because this, and whether defendants breached their duties of ordinary care, was a fact question for the jury to decide, because the record contains sufficient evidence to support the jury’s determination of the issues, and for other reasons which will be discussed, I would affirm the judgment against defendants. EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE OF NO DUTY TO TRESPASSERS As the court observed in Lee v. Chicago Transit Authority (1991), 205 Ill. App. 3d 163, 169, 562 N.E.2d 556: “Generally, a railroad company owes no duty to a trespasser except to refrain from wantonly or wilfully injuring him, and to use reasonable care to avoid injury to him after he is discovered to be in a position of peril. [Citations.] This limited duty is based on the concept that the law does not require an owner or occupier of land to anticipate the presence of persons wrongfully or unexpectedly on his land. [Citation.] There are, however, three exceptions to this general rule of limited duty. The first is for young children who the owner knows habitually frequent the vicinity of a defective structure or dangerous agency existing on the land and who by reason of their immaturity cannot appreciate the risk involved. [Citations.] The second exception applies to trespassers using permissive paths. (Morgan v. New York Central R.R. Co. (1927), 327 Ill. 339, 158 N.E. 724.) The third exception is for discovered trespassers. [Citations.]” The majority acknowledges the existence of the “permissive use” exception, which some cases discuss under the rubric of “habitual acquiescence,” and may properly be characterized as applying to frequent trespasses upon a limited area. Other cases and authority which have discussed this exception include McDaniels v. Terminal R.R. Association (1939), 302 Ill. App. 332, 23 N.E .2d 785, Miller v. General Motors Corp. (1991), 207 Ill. App. 3d 148, 565 N.E.2d 687, and M. Polelle & B. Ottley, Illinois Tort Law 459 (1985). REASONS FOR THE FREQUENT TRESPASS EXCEPTION The reason for the exceptions to the general rule of nonliability of a landowner to a trespasser is stated in Miller. There, the court observed: “[The] exceptions have developed because of the concern that human safety ought to be more important than the landowner’s interest in unrestricted freedom to use his own land as he sees fit. This view is especially prevalent in cases in which the burden on the landowner and the expense in taking precautions to prevent harm are not great. [Citation.] If that burden is very slight, and if the risk of harm to the trespasser is correspondingly very great, some commentators have found good reason to hold the landowner liable for injuries sustained on his land by the trespasser. This rule applies mostly in the case of frequent trespass upon a limited area. [Citation.]” 207 Ill. App. 3d at 155. The Miller court further observed: “When a landowner knows, or should know from the facts within his knowledge, that trespassers are in the habit of entering his land at a particular point or of traversing an area of small size, many courts hold that there is a duty of reasonable care to discover and protect trespassers in the course of the landowner’s activities. (Restatement (Second) of Torts §334 (1965).) This duty is imposed because the burden of looking out for trespassers is not great. A typical case is the frequent use of a ‘beaten path’ that crosses a railroad track, which is held to impose a duty of reasonable care as to the operation of trains. [Citation.] *** Liability has been extended in such cases because the landowner’s continued toleration of the trespass amounts to permission to make use of the land, so that the plaintiff is not a trespasser but a licensee. [Citation.] While it is true that a failure to object may amount to tacit permission, the mere fact that the landowner does not take burdensome and expensive precautions to keep trespassers out, which may well be futile, should not in itself indicate that he is willing to have them enter. [Citation.] The real basis of liability to such ‘tolerated intruders’ would seem to be only the ordinary duty to protect another, where the harm to be anticipated from a risk for which the defendant is responsible outweighs the inconvenience of guarding against it. [Citation.]” (Emphasis added.) 207 Ill. App. 3d at 155-56. It must be emphasized that there are two separate defendants in the case sub judice — the railroad company which owns subject property (landowner), including the ballast path and the right-of-way, and the railroad company (right-of-way user) which used the right-of-way with the permission of the landowner. It is important that the respective duties and breaches thereof be distinguished. I shall, therefore, discuss defendants’ respective duties and respective breaches separately. RESOLUTION OF THE FACTUAL ISSUE OF WHETHER THE FREQUENT USE EXCEPTION APPLIED Initially, however, the issue of whether Rodriguez established that the frequent trespass upon a limited area exception applied must be addressed. As to the issue of plaintiff’s status at the time of the incident, as the majority indicates, a jury’s determination can be set aside only when a court of review, or a trial court upon proper motion, is satisfied that it was occasioned by passion or prejudice or found to be wholly unwarranted from the manifest weight of the evidence. See Kahn v. James Burton Co. (1955), 5 Ill. 2d 614, 617, 126 N.E.2d 836. The relevant facts elicited at trial include the following. Witnesses described the path which Rodriguez took from the parking lot. The path was about three feet wide and led from the lot up the southern side of the embankment to the railroad right-of-way at the top. The path was covered with whitish railroad ballast stone. About three-quarters of the way up, pieces of stone material had been laid flat to form steps. Across the tracks, some 300 feet to the west, a dirt path led down from the right-of-way into an alley. Witnesses also testified that the stone path was heavily used, in the words of one witness, by “everybody and his brother, railroad workers, kids, grown-ups.” Railway workers would park in the lot and take the path up to the tracks to do repair work. Train crews would come down the path and go to the fruit stand by the parking lot. Nonemployees also climbed the path, as Rodriguez did. Members of the public “constantly” climbed up one path, crossed the tracks, and came down the path on the other side. Witnesses told the court about the dangers posed by lumber on freight trains. Lumber is transported on a flat car, wrapped in steel bands, with a wedge-shaped piece of lumber placed on the side of the car to hold the load. During transport, the load can shift and protrude from the side of the car. If the lumber shifts two feet or more, it may strike a bridge or passing train. Lumber protruding even a few inches may hit someone standing right next to the train. Consequently, new railroad employees are warned about this danger and told not to stand next to moving freight trains. According to Rule 30 of the Norfolk and Western Railway operating rules, the engine bell must be rung when the engine is about to move. Rodriguez claimed that the bell never rang. Railroad employees did not remember whether the bell rang before the engine began to move while Rodriguez was on the tracks. In this case, testimony at trial established that the path leading up to the right-of-way not only appeared to be a public path, but in fact was constantly used by members of the public. Once upon the right-of-way, pedestrians crossed the tracks, walked along the right-of-way and descended by use of the dirt path into the alley. Mark Maldonado, an area resident, testified that he had “always seen people going up and down those tracks.” (Emphasis added.) Maldonado saw people “up there,” and recounted the use of the area by one particular individual “who used to be up there all the time just about.” Maldonado saw this individual “walking on the railroad tracks, actually” (emphasis added; as opposed to walking across the railroad tracks). Andrew Tryba, who worked close by, testified that he had seen people use the ballast pathway “to get up to the railroad track area” (emphasis added; as opposed to going up to simply cross the tracks). Hector Gutierrez, another resident of the area, testified that people constantly walked up the stone path and crossed the tracks to the other side. People would then exit the area via the dirt path. In my opinion, the foregoing testimony is clearly sufficient for the jury to have concluded that the general area where Rodriguez was injured was an area which the public used frequently enough that defendants could reasonably anticipate that an individual might be there. In fact, the specific location of Rodriguez’s injury appears to have been only about 20 feet from the ballast path, in between the ballast path and the dirt path. Not only was there frequent public use of the area where plaintiff was injured, but the path leading onto the property, according to plaintiff’s expert, had the physical appearance of a public path. In fact, defendants point to no evidence in the record to contradict that there was regular public use of the area in question, and an overhead-view photograph of the area in the record supports the witnesses’ testimony concerning the layout of the area. In my view, the foregoing evidence more than supports an application of the frequent trespass exception. The cases relied upon by the majority, Lee and Miller, are easily distinguishable. In Lee, the plaintiff was electrocuted while urinating by the third rail, and the evidence established that the CTA in no way acquiesced in the use of its right-of-way. “Rather,” according to the court, “it posted warnings, erected right-of-way fencing, installed wooden access barriers and chain link fences, and designed and implemented 'jaws’ to prevent unauthorized persons from entering that right-of-way.” (Lee, 205 Ill. App. 3d at 170.) Moreover, in Lee, there was no testimony of a path or constant pedestrian use of the area where the accident occurred. Finally, in Lee, there was testimony of only one previous electrocution (a few years earlier) at the place where plaintiff’s decedent was injured in the quarter-century prior to the incident which led to the suit. The instant case does not even remotely resemble Lee. Here, people used the area constantly and here, of course, there was a total absence of protective measures to keep individuals away from the area. In Miller, the plaintiff entered the defendant’s land, unsolicited and uninvited, and “scale[d] a nine-foot wall using eyebolts, crawl[ed] through a small opening in the ceiling, and explore[d] an elevated, enclosed balcony.” (Miller, 207 Ill. App. 3d at 160.) In exploring the pumphouse structure, because he was curious, plaintiff came into contact with an electrical wire, injuring himself. Further, in Miller, there was evidence that defendant had taken precautions to keep individuals out, and there was testimony that there was not a frequent problem with trespassers. Miller, for these reasons among others, is highly distinguishable from this case. Nor am I persuaded by the majority’s reliance upon the facts that it was dark out and that plaintiff had never been to the area before. There is no testimony in the record establishing that the area was not used during hours of darkness. In fact, according to one witness, people often used the path commuting to and from work. This suggests that some pedestrian use of the area in the early morning or early evening hours did occur. As a result, some use of the area during hours of darkness, particularly during winter months, is inferable. The majority cites no compelling authority for the proposition that because plaintiff had not been to the area before, he could not have benefitted from a heightened duty. The fact that plaintiff had not been to the area of the tracks before does not take away from the public nature and appearance of the ballast path, and given the repeated pedestrian use of the area, the jury could determine that defendants should have been aware that people would often be on the track area. Nor is Briney v. Illinois Central R.R. Co. (1948), 401 Ill. 181, 81 N.E.2d 866, cited by the majority, controlling. Unlike Briney, the issue in this case is not whether plaintiff was an invitee, but rather whether plaintiff was a trespasser to whom the frequent trespasser exception applied. In Briney, the defendant was in the habit of allowing neighborhood boys to do its work for it — throw switches— and in return, defendant often gave the boys fruit. However, the Briney record did not contain facts from which it could be inferred that the individual plaintiff knew of this arrangement. Accordingly, plaintiff could hardly be said to have been an invitee, upon defendant’s property for the mutual benefit of himself and defendant. Put another way, the issue in Briney was whether there was an actual invitation to plaintiff, while in the case sub judice, the issue involves implied consent or toleration, and the exception to the trespasser rule based on frequent trespass in a limited area. Briney is therefore not controlling. I also note that the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in a case applying Hlinois substantive law, has held an individual to be a licensee, given repeated public use of property even though the individual had not been upon the property (a private road) before. See Wrigley v. Electric & Machine Co. (7th Cir. 1969), 419 F.2d 972. DUTY OF THE LANDOWNER The Restatement (Second) of Torts §335 (1965) provides: “A possessor of land who knows, or from facts within his knowledge should know, that trespassers constantly intrude upon a limited area of the land, is subject to liability for bodily harm caused to them by an artificial condition on the land, if (a) the condition (i) is one which the possessor has created or maintained] and (ii) is, to his knowledge, likely to cause death or seriously bodily harm to such trespassers and (iii) is of such a nature that he has reason to believe that such trespassers will not discover it, and (b) the possessor has failed to exercise reasonable care to warn such trespassers of the condition and the risk involved.” Hlinois law is clear as to whether a duty should be imposed. Foreseeability alone does not govern the determination; “[t]he likelihood of injury, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against it and the consequences of placing that burden upon the defendant, must also be taken into account.” (Lance v. Senior (1967), 36 Ill. 2d 516, 518, 224 N.E.2d 231.) In commenting upon the above language from Lance, the court in Zimmermann v. Netemeyer (1984), 122 Ill. App. 3d 1042, 1047, 462 N.E.2d 502, observed: “[Djuty in a negligence case is a matter of policy as well as foreseeability of harm so that in many cases the determination of duty is refined to: The existence of a legal duty is not dependent on the factor of foreseeability alone, but includes considerations of public policy and social requirements. [Citations.]” Zimmermann further observed: “[D]uty is not sacrosanct in itself, but only an expression of *** policy which lead[s] the law to say that the particular plaintiff is entitled to protection.” 122 Ill. App. 3d at 1052-53, citing W. Prosser, Torts §54, at 326-27 (4th ed. 1971). In this case there is no question that a condition existed which was likely to cause death or great bodily harm. Given the trial testimony of constant pedestrian use of the path, the question was not whether an accident would happen, but when and to whom. As will be discussed infra, the danger in this case was not open and obvious. There was testimony that even railroad employees needed to be warned of the danger of protruding loads and standing too close to a moving train. Nor would it be any great burden upon the landowner to fence this limited area, or at the very least post warnings. Because the facts of this case are well within section 335, because the burden to the landowner is very slight and because the risk of injury to the trespassers is great, I believe the trial court acted properly in imposing a duty. See Miller, 207 Ill. App. 3d at 156. DUTY OF RIGHT-OF-WAY USER The Restatement (Second) of Torts §334 (1965) provides: “A possessor of land who knows, or from facts within his knowledge should know, that trespassers constantly intrude upon a limited area thereof, is subject to liability for bodily harm caused to them by his failure to carry on an activity involving a risk of death or serious bodily harm with reasonable care for their safety.” I am likewise convinced that the evidence at trial was sufficient to hold the right-of-way user to the standard of conduct prescribed by section 334. Given the constant and repeated use of the area in question which is reasonably inferable, I do not feel the trial court erred in holding that the right-of-way user had a duty to ring its bell before resuming movement, along with the axiomatic duty to keep a proper lookout in a highly populated area. The burden to the right-of-way user in this case is simply to use reasonable care to avoid protrusion of loads in this highly populated area, ring its bell before resuming movement and lookout for individuals in the area. The burden of guarding against injury and the consequences of imposing this burden on the right-of-way user are in fact lesser than vis-a-vis the landowner. RESOLUTION OF THE FACTUAL QUESTION OF BREACH OF DUTY A word concerning the proper deference we should accord the jury is in order. Courts should direct verdicts or enter judgments n.o.v. only when “all of the evidence, when viewed in its aspect most favorable to the opponent, so overwhelmingly favors movant that no contrary verdict based on that evidence could ever stand.” (Ward v. K mart Corp. (1990), 136 Ill. 2d 132, 139-40, 554 N.E.2d 223.) It is well settled that a jury verdict should not be set aside “merely because the jury could have drawn different inferences and conclusions from conflicting testimony.” (Treadwell v. Downey (1991), 209 Ill. App. 3d 999, 1002.) If reasonable minds may differ as to inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the facts, then judgment n.o.v. should not be entered. (Lee v. Grand Trunk Western R.R. Co. (1986), 143 Ill. App. 3d 500, 509-10.) Courts should grant new trials only when the jury verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence and appears to be palpably erroneous. Tedrowe v. Burlington Northern, Inc. (1987), 158 Ill. App. 3d 438, 443, 511 N.E.2d 798; L.D. Brinkman & Co.-Midwest v. National Sponge Cushion Co. (1979), 76 Ill. App. 3d 683, 688. Rodriguez’s testimony that protruding lumber struck him was clear. When asked if he was sure it was wood that struck him, he stated: “It was wood. *** It’s a fact. I worked with wood. I have worked with lumber, I have built porches, I know wood. *** [W]ith lumber you get a spring action to it ***.” Rodriguez testified that the wood pulled him down and into the path of the moving train. As indicated, the landowner in the case sub judice neither fenced the area around the ballast path, nor placed signs warning of the danger or prohibiting trespassing. The resolution by the jury that the landowner breached its duty is therefore clearly a reasonable one. Likewise, the jury could reasonably have found that the right-of-way user breached its duty in not ringing the warning bell, whose purpose was to warn people that the train was moving, and whose effect, Rodriguez clearly testified, would have been to influence him to immediately leave the area. Rodriguez testified that he would have associated the ringing of a bell with “danger,” and as a “warning signal” and that he would have “left the area immediately.” The jury could reasonably have concluded that the bell should have been rung, given its determination that the right-of-way user operated a train with lumber protruding from a car, in this area frequented by the public, where the facts indicate the right-of-way user did not effectively look out for plaintiff’s presence. Simply put, the question of breach in this case was a jury question, and the jury’s finding was neither palpably erroneous nor against the manifest weight of the evidence. Nor are we presented with a situation where the evidence, taken in a light most favorable to the opponent, so overwhelmingly favors the movant that no contrary verdict could ever stand. In fact, had the jury returned a verdict in favor of either or both defendants, I would likewise abide by that result. The decision here was for the trier of fact, was properly made by the jury, and should not be set aside merely because reasonable minds may differ as to the inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the facts. WHETHER THE DANGER WAS “OPEN AND OBVIOUS” I disagree, further, with the majority’s brief implication that the danger in this case was open and obvious as a matter of law. If the danger was merely the presence of trains themselves, I would not hesitate to agree that the danger was open and obvious. (See Dunn v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. (1989), 127 Ill. 2d 350, 537 N.E.2d 738.) The danger in this case was that of shifting and protruding loads, as plaintiff testified that he was struck by a piece of lumber. The evidence established that Rodriguez was unaware of the danger of being struck by a piece of wood. Plaintiff’s expert testified that he was unaware of such a danger before he was employed in the railroad business. One of defendant Norfolk’s own switchmen, Mangialardi, testified that he himself was not aware of this danger before he was trained to be alert for it. In light of the above, I do not feel that we can say that the danger of shifting and protruding loads is so “blatantly obvious” that defendant “could not reasonably be expected to anticipate that people will fail to protect themselves” from danger posed by the condition. See Ward v. K mart Corp. (1990), 136 Ill. 2d 132, 139-40, 554 N.E.2d 223. In short, I disagree with the majority’s conclusions that plaintiff was a trespasser to whom the frequent trespass upon a limited area exception did not apply. I believe that duties of reasonable care may properly be imposed upon defendants given the constant public use of the area where Rodriguez was injured, and I believe that the jury’s resolution of the factual questions relating to defendants’ breaches of their duties should not be disturbed. I further disagree that the danger in this case was open and obvious as a matter of law, and seeing no reversible error among defendants’ other contentions of error, I would affirm the judgment of the circuit court.