Zokhrabov v. Jeung-Hee Park
963 N.E.2d 1035 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A pedestrian owes a duty of reasonable care to bystanders on a train platform, as it is reasonably foreseeable that negligently walking into the path of a high-speed train could result in the pedestrian's body being struck and thrown into those bystanders, causing injury.
Facts:
- Hiroyuki Joho, an 18-year-old man, was crossing a double set of train tracks within a designated crosswalk at the Edgebrook Metra station.
- It was raining heavily, and Joho was holding an open umbrella over his head while carrying a computer bag.
- An Amtrak train, not scheduled to stop at the station, was approaching at approximately 73 miles per hour.
- The train's engineer sounded a whistle and its headlamps were flashing as it approached the station.
- Joho proceeded to cross the tracks and was struck and killed by the train.
- The force of the collision propelled Joho's body about 100 feet onto the southbound passenger platform.
- Gayane Zokhrabov, a 58-year-old commuter, was standing on the platform waiting for a train.
- Joho's body struck Zokhrabov from behind, knocking her to the ground and causing a shoulder injury, a leg fracture, and a wrist fracture.
Procedural Posture:
- Gayane Zokhrabov sued the estate of Hiroyuki Joho, represented by Jeung-Hee Park, in the circuit court of Cook County, alleging negligence.
- Zokhrabov filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of proximate causation.
- Park filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that Joho owed no actionable duty of care to Zokhrabov.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Park (the defendant's estate).
- Zokhrabov, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District.
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 pedestrian who negligently crosses train tracks in front of an oncoming high-speed train owe a duty of care to a bystander on a nearby platform who is injured when the pedestrian's body is struck by the train and flung into them?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice McBride
Yes, a pedestrian who negligently crosses train tracks owes a duty of care to a bystander on a nearby platform. The court reasoned that every person owes a duty of ordinary care to guard against injuries to others that are a reasonably probable and foreseeable consequence of their actions. To determine if a duty exists, courts analyze four factors: (1) the reasonable foreseeability of the injury, (2) the likelihood of the injury, (3) the magnitude of the burden of guarding against it, and (4) the consequences of placing that burden on the defendant. Here, it was reasonably foreseeable that a high-speed train would strike a pedestrian on the tracks and fling their body with great force onto the nearby platform where commuters congregate. The court distinguished this from 'tragically bizarre' accidents, finding the physics of a train collision relatively predictable. The likelihood of injury was great, while the burden on Joho to guard against it—pausing and looking before crossing—was minimal. Therefore, Joho owed a duty of care to Zokhrabov.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of foreseeability in establishing a duty of care, extending it beyond direct interaction to encompass the predictable, albeit unusual, consequences of one's negligence. The court established that a person's body can be the instrument of harm and that the foreseeability analysis should focus on the general potential for injury, not the specific or bizarre method by which it occurs. This precedent is significant for personal injury cases involving complex chains of causation, particularly in high-risk environments like train stations, reinforcing that individuals have a duty to consider the safety of bystanders who could be harmed by the foreseeable results of their carelessness.
