PointofLaw.com
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

 

 

Choate v Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co.

| 3 Comments


12-year-old Dominic Choate decided to impress his friends and jump aboard a slow-moving freight train, despite their yelling at him to get away from the train. After two unsuccessful attempts, he made a third attempt that was not just unsuccessful, but disastrous: he fell, the train wheel ran over his foot, severing it above the toes, and resulting in an amputation below the knee. This was, he alleged in a lawsuit, the railroad's fault. Defendants asked for summary judgment, noting that not only was jumping on a train obviously dangerous, but Choate admitted he knew it was dangerous, but the trial court refused, and a jury held the railroad 60% liable for what it computed to be $6.5 million in damages. An intermediate appellate court affirmed, despite a WLF amicus brief. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed last week: a landowner owes no duty to trespassers, and while it owes a duty to children to warn them of latent harms that a child might not reasonably apprehend, it owes no duty with respect to obvious harms. [WLF]

3 Comments

It seems like a pretty standard attractive nuisance case. Laws and their interpretation vary by state.

These cases are covered in ALR 4th 294 which is said to supersede 32 ALR 3rd 508, and Am Jur 2nd Premises Liability (Age of Appreciation) and Am Jur 2nd Railroads.

Agreed. Pretty standard and fairly straightforward as well. Haven't read the lower courts' opinions, but one has to wonder why they got it so wrong.

The reference cited supra should read "22 ALR 4th 294 which supersedes 32 ALR 3rd 508."

I found a couple of others. 70 ALR 3rd 1125 which is pretty short.

And "Age and Mentality of Child in Applying Nuisance Doctrine" 16 ALR 3rd 25. It has a lot of cases and is from 1967.

Here is a tip: You can google those old cases and if they have been cited in more recent decisions, the new case will usually come up. It works about 90% of the time and saves buying updates.

Leave a comment

Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.

The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.

Related Entries:

 

 


Isaac Gorodetski
Project Manager,
Center for Legal Policy at the
Manhattan Institute
igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org

Katherine Lazarski
Press Officer,
Manhattan Institute
klazarski@manhattan-institute.org

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.