X hits on this document

232 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 views232
Page views232
Page last viewedSun Jan 22 12:33:27 UTC 2017
Pages60
Paragraphs1472
Words18760

Comments