Choate v. IN Harbor Belt R.R. Co.
Annotate this CasePlaintiff was 12 years old when, in 2003, his left foot was severed above the toes when he attempted to jump onto a freight train that was moving by the parking lot of an apartment building in Chicago Ridge. The track was partially fenced off and there was a sign warning of danger and prohibiting trespassing. As a result, an amputation below the knee was performed. The company which operated the train settled for $25,000, but plaintiff sued three other railroad companies. The trial judge found that the question of whether the danger of jumping onto a moving freight train was so obvious as to preclude any duty by the defendants was a question of fact for the jury. The jury assessed $6.5 million; that amount was reduced to $3.9 million by the earlier settlement and because plaintiff was found to have been 40% negligent. The appellate court affirmed. The supreme court reversed without remand. Under Illinois law, a moving train is an obvious danger as to which any child old enough to be allowed at large should recognize the risk. The defendants never had a legal duty to the plaintiff trespasser in this situation.
Court Description:
This plaintiff was 12 years old and had finished sixth grade when, in the summer of 2003, his left foot was severed above the toes when he attempted to jump onto a freight train which was moving by the parking lot of an apartment building in Chicago Ridge. The track was partially fenced off and there was a sign warning of danger and prohibiting trespassing.
As a result of this injury, an amputation below the knee was performed. The railroad company which operated the train settled for $25,000, but the plaintiff sued three other railroad companies who are the defendants here and recovered $3.9 million after a Cook County jury trial. The jury had originally assessed $6.5 million in damages, but that amount was reduced by the earlier settlement and because the plaintiff was found to have been 40% negligent.
At trial, the defense had claimed that no duty was owed as a matter of law, but the trial judge found that the question of whether the danger of jumping onto a moving freight train was so obvious as to preclude any duty by the defendants was a question of fact for the jury. After the trial, the defendants, again claiming lack of duty, unsuccessfully sought a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appellate court affirmed.
In this decision, the supreme court held that both the circuit and the appellate courts committed reversible error in viewing the defendants’ duty to the plaintiff as an issue of fact for the jury to determine. However, the reversal being ordered here is being entered without remand because, under Illinois law, a moving train is an obvious danger as to which any child old enough to be allowed at large should recognize the risk. The defendants never had a legal duty to the plaintiff trespasser in this situation.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.