Benamon v. Soo Line Railroad
294 Ill. App. 3d 85, 228 Ill. Dec. 494, 689 N. E. 2d 366 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner owes no duty of reasonable care to a trespasser unless an exception applies, such as private necessity, which requires the trespasser's entry onto the land to be a reasonable action under the circumstances, or the permissive use/child trespasser doctrines, which require evidence that the landowner knew or should have known of constant and persistent intrusions at the specific place of injury.
Facts:
- William Benamon, age 15, was walking home when a group of boys began pointing at and running towards him.
- Fearing the boys intended to steal his coat, Benamon ran up a railway incline onto a train overpass owned by Soo Line Railroad Company and Belt Railway Company of Chicago to hide.
- Benamon was approximately three blocks from his home but chose not to run there because he did not want the group of boys to know where he lived.
- After he believed the group was gone, Benamon attempted to leave the overpass.
- His foot became lodged between the steel grates and a wooden rail on the tracks.
- Benamon was unable to extricate his foot before a passing freight train struck him, causing the partial amputation of his left leg.
- Over the previous four years, Benamon had seen other children on the tracks on three or four occasions, but not at the specific location of his injury.
- Graffiti was present on the girders near the tracks.
Procedural Posture:
- Catherine Benamon, on behalf of her son William, filed a negligence action against Soo Line Railroad Company and the Belt Railway Company of Chicago in the trial court.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty to William because he was a trespasser.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
- The plaintiff, Catherine Benamon, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landowner owe a duty of reasonable care to a 15-year-old trespasser under the exceptions for private necessity, permissive use, or child trespassers, when the trespasser entered an inherently dangerous area with safer alternatives available and there is insufficient evidence that the landowner knew people frequented that specific location?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Gordon
No, a landowner does not owe a duty of reasonable care to the trespasser under these circumstances. The court rejected all of the plaintiff's arguments for imposing such a duty. First, the privilege of private necessity did not apply because Benamon's decision to enter the inherently dangerous railroad overpass was not reasonable, particularly when other, safer options were available, such as running to a nearby house. Second, the permissive user exception failed because there was no evidence of constant and persistent intrusion at the specific location of the injury; seeing children a few times over four years in a general area and the presence of graffiti were insufficient to establish that the defendants knew or should have known of regular trespassing on the overpass. Finally, the child trespasser doctrine was inapplicable for the same reason: the defendants could not have foreseen the harm because they had no reason to know that children habitually frequented the specific, dangerous area where the injury occurred.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold for applying exceptions to the general rule that landowners owe no duty of care to trespassers. The court narrowly interprets the 'private necessity' privilege, adding a critical reasonableness component to the trespasser's actions, meaning the choice of refuge cannot be disproportionately dangerous compared to the threat. Furthermore, the opinion emphasizes the need for specific and frequent evidence of trespassing at the exact location of the injury to trigger the 'permissive user' or 'child trespasser' doctrines, making it difficult for plaintiffs to succeed based on sporadic intrusions or general evidence of presence in a wider vicinity.
Unlock the full brief for Benamon v. Soo Line Railroad