The Chicago Tribune is reporting here that an Illinois Appellate Court upheld a unique lawsuit by a woman that has some very tragic facts. In the suit, a man was tragically killed while running to catch what he thought was his Metra train for work. The train he was running for was actually an Amtrak Express Train that, unbeknownst to him, was not slowing down for the station. The man was hit by the train at full speed while attempting to run across the train tracks to the boarding ramp. Sadly, the man was killed by the train and his body hit a woman standing nearby (Out of respect for the decedent I am not going to recount the specific details; see the Tribune article for more information).   The woman’s leg and wrist were broken and her shoulder injured when she was struck by the man’s body. She subsequently sued the man’s estate for her injuries in negligence.

A Cook County Circuit Court dismissed the woman’s case and stated that the man could not have anticipated the woman’s injuries.

For a negligence case, the plaintiff must prove a duty, breach of that duty, causation, and damages.  For the causation element, there are an additional two prongs:  reasonable foreseeability and proximate cause. Foreseeability is fairly simple-was the injury that occurred reasonably foreseeable from the behavior being complained about? Proximate cause is more nebulous and deals more with the scope of a person’s liability. For proximate cause the courts ask how far to extend the foreseeability. Eventually there is a cut-off point for liability, and proximate cause can be used by courts to cut off liability. Generally, for proximate cause to be implicated, the injury that occurs is foreseeable from the conduct, but the injury alleged and the conduct giving rise to injury is too far removed from the original incident to warrant liability.

In this case, an Illinois Appellate Court reversed the trial court and stated that the woman’s injury was a foreseeable consequence of the man’s negligence. The man was negligent by not realizing the train he was running after was not slowing down.

The man’s estate also sued the train station. His case was also dismissed at the trial court because the train’s speed was “open and obvious” and there was no duty to warn passengers of its speed. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the Circuit Court’s dismissal of the man’s lawsuit but reversed for the woman.

While the facts are truly unfortunate because these are actual people with families, it shows how the law attempts to deal with tragic and bizarre events and apply law to sad situations. Thoughts and prayers go out to all the parties involved.