X hits on this document





44 / 60

failure to recognize that children determined to jump onto moving trains will do so

wherever they can get access to them is against the tide of precedent. For example,

applying Illinois law, the Seventh Circuit has explained that “effectively foreclos[ing]”

the “practice of hopping rides” would “require fencing or patrolling of defendant’s entire

right-of-way.” Ill. State Trust, 440 F.2d at 501 (emphasis added). As in this case, the

“practice of hopping rides” was by “no means confined to” the specific location where

the accident occurred. Id.; Tr. 164 (citing “prior incidents that . . . weren’t necessarily in

the same locality”). Thus, the “only method[] of [e]nsuring that such injuries would not

recur would be to fence the right-of-way . . . where there is any likelihood of children’s

presence” or to “place a guard at all such” locations. Ill. State Trust, 440 F.2d at 501. The

Seventh Circuit “[did] not believe Illinois law impose[d] any such requirement” that

railroads shoulder this “enormous burden” and therefore affirmed the entry of a directed

verdict in favor of the defendant railroads. Id. The Seventh Circuit’s decision in Illinois

State Trust is both on point and plainly correct. Neither Illinois statute nor Illinois

common law imposes on railroads a duty to fence against trespassing children. Tr. 1306-

07, 2070. The steadfast refusal of the General Assembly and courts to impose such a duty

no doubt stems from the recognition that it would be “substantially impossible for a

railroad company to construct a fence which would be an effectual barrier even to young

boys.” Bischof v. Ill. S. Ry., 232 Ill. 446, 453-54 (1908). Bischof and Illinois State Trust

place Illinois in the mainstream of states whose courts have held, as a matter of law, that

protective measures against train-hopping adolescents would be wholly impracticable and

that their cost would not be “slight as compared to the risk to the children involved,” as

  • -

    35 -

Document info
Document views251
Page views251
Page last viewedTue Jan 24 13:42:42 UTC 2017