X hits on this document

143 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

2 / 60

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

I.

DEFENDANTS OWED NO DUTY TO CHOATE BECAUSE HE REASONABLY COULD HAVE BEEN EXPECTED TO APPRECIATE, AND DID IN FACT APPRECIATE, THAT JUMPING ONTO A MOVING TRAIN IS DANGEROUS.............................17

Colls v. City of Chicago, 212 Ill. App. 3d 904 (1st Dist. 1991)...................................17, 18

Cope v. Doe, 102 Ill. 2d 278 (1984) ..................................................................................18

Corcoran v. Vill. of Libertyville, 73 Ill. 2d 316 (1978)................................................17, 18

Kahn v. James Burton Co., 5 Ill. 2d 614 (1955) ..........................................................17, 18

Mt. Zion State Bank & Trust v. Consol. Commc’ns, Inc., 169 Ill. 2d 110 (1995) ............................................................................................17, 18

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339.................................................................................18

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339, cmt. i. ....................................................................18

A.

Defendants Are Entitled To Judgment Because A Moving Train Presents An Open And Obvious Danger That Children Of Choate’s Age And Experience Can Be Expected To Appreciate.................................................................................................18

Booth v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 224 Ill. App. 3d 720 (3d Dist. 1992)................................................................19, 23, 25

Briney v. Ill. Cent. R.R., 401 Ill. 181 (1948)................................................................20, 24

Bucheleres v. Chi. Park Dist., 171 Ill. 2d 435 (1996)........................................................25

Colls v. City of Chicago, 212 Ill. App. 3d 904 (1st Dist. 1991).........................................23

Cope v. Doe, 102 Ill. 2d 278 (1984) ......................................................................19, 24, 26

Corcoran v. Vill. of Libertyville, 73 Ill. 2d 316 (1978)..........................................19, 20, 21

Engel v. Chicago & North Western Transportation Co., 186 Ill. App. 3d 522 (1st Dist. 1989) .........................................................21, 22, 23, 24

Fitzgerald v. Chi., B. & Q.R. Co., 114 Ill. App. 118 (1st Dist. 1904) ...............................20

Foreman v. Consol. Rail Corp., 214 Ill. App. 3d 700 (1st Dist. 1991) .............................23

Document info
Document views143
Page views143
Page last viewedSat Dec 03 02:42:46 UTC 2016
Pages60
Paragraphs1472
Words18760

Comments