## Facts

- At a Chicago commuter rail station, an 18-year-old pedestrian crossed train tracks in a designated pedestrian crosswalk between platforms during heavy rain while holding an umbrella and carrying a bag.
- A southbound train traveling about 73 mph was not scheduled to stop at the station; the engineer sounded the whistle and activated flashing headlamps.
- The train struck the pedestrian and propelled his body roughly 100 feet onto the platform.
- The propelled body struck a 58-year-old commuter from behind, knocking her down and causing shoulder, leg, and wrist injuries.
- The injured commuter sued the pedestrian’s estate, alleging negligent failure to keep a proper lookout, entering the train’s path, and failing to yield to an approaching train.
- The plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on proximate cause; the estate moved for summary judgment arguing no duty was owed to the plaintiff.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the estate, concluding the plaintiff’s injury was not reasonably foreseeable and therefore no duty existed.

## Issues

1. Whether a pedestrian who negligently crosses active train tracks owes a duty of reasonable care to nearby commuters injured when the train strikes and propels the pedestrian into them.
2. Whether the foreseeability component of Illinois duty analysis requires foresight of the precise mechanism of injury (body propelled into a bystander) or only a foreseeable risk of injury to persons nearby.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded.
- It held the pedestrian owed a duty of reasonable care to persons in the vicinity, including the plaintiff.
- It ruled that injury to a nearby bystander was reasonably foreseeable from negligently crossing in front of a fast-moving train, even if the exact manner of injury was unusual.
- The court applied de novo review to the summary judgment ruling.

## Legal Principles

- Illinois duty analysis considers: (1) reasonable foreseeability of injury, (2) likelihood of injury, (3) magnitude of the burden of guarding against injury, and (4) consequences of placing that burden on the defendant.
- Foreseeability does not require anticipating the precise chain of events or exact manner of harm; it is enough that some injury to someone in the plaintiff’s position is reasonably foreseeable within the scope of risk created.
- Entering the path of a high-speed train creates a foreseeable risk not only to the pedestrian but also to persons nearby due to secondary impacts from the collision.
- The burden of precaution in this setting is minimal (e.g., pausing and looking for an approaching train before crossing), supporting recognition of a duty.
- Recognizing duty is limited to reasonably foreseeable persons in the zone of danger and does not impose unlimited liability.

## Conclusion

The court held that a commuter who negligently crosses in front of a fast-moving train can owe a duty of reasonable care to nearby bystanders injured by secondary impacts from the collision, because such harm falls within the foreseeable risk created by the negligent crossing; summary judgment for lack of duty was therefore reversed and the case remanded.


Zokhrabov v. Park, 963 N.E.2d 1035 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011)