Anderson v. Chicago Transit Authority

Illinois Appellate Court, First District, Second Division · 2019 · Torts

TortsNegligenceDutyCommon carriersPremises liabilityWrongful deathcommon carrierpassenger status

Facts

Decedent entered the Kedzie-Homan Blue Line station, went to the platform, and remained there for about 30 minutes while 11 trains passed without his boarding any of them. The surveillance video showed him sometimes holding a pillar, hunching, wobbling, entering the warning-tile area, and in the final minutes drinking from, dropping, and then kicking a bottle or can near the platform edge. He later tripped or stepped on that object, fell into the trackbed, landed on the third rail, and was electrocuted; no train was approaching when he fell. Plaintiff alleged he was experiencing diabetic shock and that CTA employees negligently failed to monitor him, assess his condition, summon aid, or cut power to the third rail.

Issue

Did the CTA owe decedent either the heightened duty owed by a common carrier to a passenger or, alternatively, an ordinary duty as a business invitor to monitor, assess, rescue, or obtain medical care for him while he lingered on the platform before his fall? Also, did policy considerations foreclose recognition of such a duty?

Rule

A common carrier owes the highest degree of care only in connection with transportation and immediate incidents of transportation, such as boarding, riding, or alighting; mere presence on a station platform with prior intent to board is not enough where the person is not engaged in boarding when injured. As to a business invitee, the CTA owes only ordinary reasonable care, and that duty does not require it to monitor for, diagnose, or rescue an invitee from a wholly idiopathic medical condition not caused by the CTA. In determining duty, courts also consider foreseeability, likelihood of injury, the magnitude of guarding against the injury, and the consequences of placing that burden on the defendant.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Philadelphia, Maya Torres paid her fare, waited on a rail platform, and when a train stopped with its doors open, she stepped directly toward the nearest doorway to enter. As she crossed the marked boarding area, her foot caught in a broken section of platform surface and she fell.

If Maya sues the transit authority for negligence, which duty standard most likely applies under the majority's rule?

Explanation. The majority limited the heightened common-carrier duty to transportation and immediate incidents of transportation, such as boarding, riding, or alighting. A person need not already be physically on the vehicle if she is actually engaged in boarding. Here, Maya was moving into the train through the boarding area when injured, so the heightened duty would most likely apply. (Derived from Anderson v. Chicago Transit Authority (n.d.).)