Posted on December 28, 2011 by Mark T. McAndrew

Walking Outside the Crosswalk

While crossing a Chicago street, Beverly Longo strayed outside the crosswalk and was hit by a Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) bus. She claimed that she could not cross within the crosswalk because there were other pedestrians and a bicyclist who was making deliveries for a local sandwich shop. She claimed the bike was also in the crosswalk. Longo filed suit against the CTA.  

During summary judgment proceedings, the court concluded that there was no evidence of negligence. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the CTA. Longo appealed.

The appellate court affirmed but on grounds that there was a lack of duty owed to Longo. Amanda Jimolka v. Chicago Transit Authority, et al., No. 1-10-2894 (2011). Under Illinois Law, pedestrians traveling on a public roadway, outside of the crosswalk are neither intended or permitted users and  thus are owed no duty of care. Streets are used for vehicles not pedestrians.    It was undisputed that Longo collided with the lower, right hand corner of the bus near a manhole that was more than 9 feet outside of the crosswalk.   Under Illinois law, it was Longo who should have yielded to the traffic when she walked outside of the crosswalk. 

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted on January 3, 2011 by Mark T. McAndrew

CTA Liability

Cook County Circuit Court Judge Kathy Flanagan’s granting of a motion for summary judgment has been reversed by the Illinois Appellate Court. The plaintiff, Marla Beth Torf, alleged injuries sustained on July 7, 2007, when she and her husband were passengers on a CTA train. Shortly after leaving the station the train was stopped and its power was turned off. Approximately 1.5 hours after the train was stopped passengers were ordered to evacuate the train. While trying to sit on the floor next to the train door to jump to the tracks below she was knocked to the ground by another passenger.

            The CTA filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff’s discovery deposition established that her injuries were caused by criminal assault and the complaint essentially argued that the CTA failed to protect the plaintiff from the criminal act of a third party. As such, the CTA felt it was immune from liability under Sec. 27 of the Metropolitan Transit Authority Act. This Act provides that the CTA cannot be held liable for its failure to prevent crimes by fellow passengers or other third parties.

            The plaintiff appealed, arguing that her allegations fell outside the scope of the statute and that a question of fact existed as to whether criminal conduct caused her injuries.

The appeals court agreed. Specifically the Appeals Court pointed out that there was nothing in the substance of the plaintiff’s complaint that could be construed to assert liability on the part of the CTA based upon its failure to prevent a criminal attack on the plaintiff. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence on the record to determine the mental state of the passenger who made contact with the plaintiff. As such, the circuit court’s legal determination that the passenger’s conduct was battery was incorrect.

Tags: , , ,