Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Trigsted v. Chicago Transit Authority

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division

July 19, 2013

LETICIA ZAVALA TRIGSTED, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of Valery Trigsted, a Minor, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

Rule 23 Order filed June 7, 2013.

Rule 23 Order withdrawn July 11, 2013.

Held [*]

Defendant transit authority’s alleged negligence in allowing the bus on which plaintiff and her daughter were riding to become overcrowded was not the proximate cause of the injuries they suffered when plaintiffs were attacked by two other passengers; therefore, the entry of summary judgment for defendant was affirmed.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 09-L-12115; the Hon. Thomas J. Lipscomb, Judge, presiding.

John F. O'Meara, of Chicago, for appellants.

Karen G. Seimetz, Stephen Wood, and Rachel Kaplan, all of Chicago Transit Authority, of Chicago, for appellee.

Panel JUSTICE GORDON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Hall and Reyes concurred in the judgment and opinion.



¶ 1 The instant appeal concerns the liability of defendant Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) for injuries suffered by plaintiffs Leticia Trigsted and her daughter, six-year-old Valery Trigsted, when they were attacked while riding a CTA bus. Plaintiffs filed suit against the CTA, claiming that the CTA's negligent conduct in permitting the bus to become overcrowded increased the risk of attacks by third parties. The trial court granted the CTA's motion for summary judgment, finding that the CTA was immune from liability for failure to prevent third-party criminal acts and that plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the CTA's conduct proximately caused their injuries. Plaintiffs appeal, and we affirm.


¶ 3 I. Complaint

¶ 4 On October 13, 2009, plaintiffs filed a complaint against the CTA alleging that, on May 27, 2009, plaintiffs boarded a westbound CTA bus at the intersection of Sacramento Boulevard and Belmont Avenue. As the bus continued on its route, it became overcrowded, especially at the intersection of Belmont and Kimball, "causing some passengers to begin pushing[, ] jostling and shoving each other" as the bus continued to its stop at 3558 W. Belmont. Two specific passengers, a man and a woman, "kick[ed] and punch[ed] other passengers, including [Leticia], while hurling insults regarding national origin" and squeezed Valery between them.

¶ 5 The complaint alleges that the CTA was negligent: (a) in permitting its bus to become overcrowded, "causing some passengers to begin pushing[, ] jostling and shoving each other"; (b) in permitting the two passengers to kick and punch other passengers and "hurl[ ] insults" "when the driver of the bus knew or should have known of this conduct and failed to do anything to prevent it"; and (c) in "encourag[ing] and facilitat[ing] the escape of Plaintiff's assailants before the police arrived."[1] The complaint alleges that as a result of the CTA's negligence, Leticia sustained physical injury, pain and suffering, and humiliation and that Valery sustained "trauma, fear and humiliation which has required her to receive medical care" as a result of being squeezed between the two passengers.

¶ 6 On December 30, 2009, the CTA filed its answer and affirmative defenses, denying the allegations in plaintiffs' complaint and claiming as affirmative matter that plaintiffs were barred from recovery because their injuries were caused by their own negligence and that the amount of their comparative fault was in excess of 50%. The CTA did not make any mention of statutory immunity in its affirmative defenses.

¶ 7 II. CTA's Motion for Summary Judgment

¶ 8 On December 20, 2011, the CTA filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that all of plaintiffs' allegations amounted to a claim against the CTA for failing to protect plaintiffs from the criminal acts of a third party, which fell within the purview of the statutory immunity provided to the CTA by section 27 of the Metropolitan Transit Authority Act (the Act) (70 ILCS 3605/27 (West 2008)), which provides in relevant part that "[n]either the Authority, the members of its Board nor its officers or employees shall be held liable for failure to provide a security or police force or, if a security or police force is provided, for failure to provide adequate police protection or security, failure to prevent the commission of crimes by fellow passengers or other third persons or for the failure to apprehend criminals."

¶ 9 The CTA also argued that its actions were not the proximate cause of plaintiffs' injuries, but, at most, plaintiffs claimed the CTA furnished a condition that made the injury possible. Consequently, the CTA claimed that it was entitled to summary judgment.

¶ 10 Attached to the CTA's motion for summary judgment were a number of exhibits, including a DVD containing the surveillance video recording from the bus on which the incident had occurred.

¶ 11 A. Leticia's Deposition

¶ 12 Also attached to the CTA's motion for summary judgment was the transcript of Leticia's discovery deposition, taken on April 25, 2011. Leticia testified that she moved to the United States from Mexico in 1990 and spoke fluent Spanish.

¶ 13 Leticia testified that, on May 27, 2009, she picked up her daughter Valery from school at Sacramento and Belmont and was traveling to a bank on the corner of Milwaukee and Belmont by taking the westbound route 77 CTA bus down Belmont Avenue. The bus stopped at Belmont and Kimball, across the street from a Blue Line L stop, at approximately 4 p.m. When she entered the bus, Leticia had been unable to find a seat because the bus was full, but as passengers departed the bus at Kimball, she was able to sit in a seat directly behind the rear door; Valery was sitting on Leticia's lap.

¶ 14 Leticia testified that at the Kimball stop, passengers entered the bus from both the front and rear doors. Leticia observed a CTA employee collecting fares at the rear door who permitted passengers to enter from the rear; the CTA employee did not ride the bus but remained at the stop. After people had boarded the bus at Kimball, the bus was "[p]retty packed."

ΒΆ 15 Two particular individuals boarded the bus through the rear door at Kimball: an African-American man, who was approximately 6 feet 2 inches and 240 pounds, and a Puerto Rican woman, who was approximately 5 feet 1 inch and 150 pounds; the woman indicated that they were married. Leticia overheard the couple "talking loud and nasty" to a Mexican man in front of them who had also boarded the bus at Kimball; the woman was calling him names in Spanish and making derogatory statements about Mexicans, and the man was making similar statements in English. The Mexican man walked away and did not respond to the verbal attack. Leticia had "[n]o idea" what prompted the couple to make the inappropriate comments to the Mexican man and testified "I don't know if he cut in front ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.