Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

negligenceappealsummary judgmentduty of care

plaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligenceappealtrialduty of care

Related Cases

Zokhrabov v. Jeung-Hee Park, 2011 IL App (1st) 102672, 963 N.E.2d 1035, 357 Ill.Dec. 637

Facts

Hiroyuki Joho was killed by an Amtrak train while crossing tracks at the Edgebrook Metra station. He was struck just before 8 a.m. on September 13, 2008, while attempting to reach the westside platform for a scheduled Metra train. Witnesses noted that Joho was smiling and seemingly unaware of the approaching train, which was traveling at 73 miles per hour. After being struck, Joho's body was propelled onto the platform, where it struck Zokhrabov, causing her serious injuries. Zokhrabov subsequently sued Joho's estate for negligence.

Zokhrabov sued Joho's estate in the circuit court of Cook County seeking damages on the ground that his negligence caused her injuries.

Issue

Did Hiroyuki Joho owe a duty of care to Gayane Zokhrabov, and was it reasonably foreseeable that his actions could result in her injury?

The question we must answer is whether Joho owed a duty of care to Zokhrabov as he approached and entered the active Edgebrook station and she stood down the tracks in the waiting area designated for intended passengers.

Rule

A pedestrian has a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid causing physical harm to others, and the existence of a duty is determined by the foreseeability of injury to others.

Ordinarily, a person engaging in conduct that creates risks to others has a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid causing them physical harm.

Analysis

The court found that Joho's actions were negligent as he failed to look for oncoming trains before crossing the tracks. Given the circumstances, including the marked pedestrian crosswalk and the train's speed, it was reasonably foreseeable that Joho's negligence could lead to injury to others, including Zokhrabov, who was waiting on the platform. The court emphasized that the potential for injury was significant and that Joho's failure to exercise caution constituted a breach of his duty of care.

Accordingly, we further find that it was reasonably foreseeable that the onrushing Amtrak train would strike, kill, and fling his body down the tracks and onto the passenger platform where Zokhrabov was waiting for the next scheduled Metra departure.

Conclusion

The Appellate Court reversed the Circuit Court's summary judgment in favor of Joho's estate, concluding that Joho owed a duty of care to Zokhrabov and that the case should be remanded for further proceedings.

We, therefore, find that the trial judge erred in holding that the defendant owed the plaintiff no duty of care.

Who won?

Gayane Zokhrabov prevailed in the appeal as the court found that Joho owed her a duty of care, which the lower court had failed to recognize.

Zokhrabov appeals. She contends the trial court recognized the governing principles of law, but failed to apply them correctly.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Jones v. J.B. Lippincott Co., 694 F.Supp. 1216, 15 Media L. Rep. 2155

Schork v. Huber, 648 S.W.2d 861

Fennell v. Southern Maryland Hosp. Center, Inc., 320 Md. 776, 580 A.2d 206, 59 USLW 2236

Bogdanski v. Budzik, 408 P.3d 1156, 2018 WY 7

Quisenberry v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, 296 Va. 233, 818 S.E.2d 805, 169 Lab.Cas. P 61,906, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 20,477