Watson v. Chicago Transit Authority

• Decision Date: 02 October 1972
• Docket Number: No. 44550,44550
• Citation: 52 Ill.2d 503,288 N.E.2d 476
• Parties: Raymond M. WATSON, Appellant, v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Appellee.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 476

288 N.E.2d 476

52 Ill.2d 503

Raymond M. WATSON, Appellant, v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Appellee.

No. 44550.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 2, 1972.

John C. Ambrose and Philip J. Schmidt, Chicago, for appellant.

James G. O'Donohue, O. R. Hamlink, Jerome F. Dixon, and Harry I. Parsons, Chicago, for appellee.

KLUCZYNSKI, Justice.

This appeal involves a personal injury complaint filed in the circuit court of Cook County against defendant, Chicago Transit Authority. At the close of plaintiff's evidence before a jury, the trial court directed a verdict for defendant. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the injury to plaintiff was not foreseeable and thus the failure of defendant's driver to aid plaintiff could not be considered negligent under the circumstances. (Watson v. Chicago Transit Authority, 133 Ill.App.2d ---, 272 N.E.2d 690.) We granted leave to appeal. The sole issue presented is whether the motion for a directed verdict was properly allowed.

About 6:30 A.M. on December 25, 1962, plaintiff and his companion, Miss Maureen Davis, boarded defendant's bus, which contained only a few passengers, at the corner of 67th and South Parkway in Chicago. As plaintiff paid his fare, he noticed a man talking with the bus driver. Plaintiff and Miss Davis sat in the second row of seats behind the driver while the other man continued the conversation. Plaintiff stated that the man appeared intoxicated.

When the bus reached State Street, the man prepared to alight from the bus but then turned and approached the plaintiff asking him in a loud voice for change for a quarter. Plaintiff informed him that he had no change and suggested that he ask the driver. The man refused and continued to loudly demand change from him. Plaintiff further testified that at this point the man pulled a pistol from his pocket. The plaintiff immediately seized his wrist and began to struggle with him. At this time a female passenger seated nearby heard the commotion and, seeing the gun, began to scream. Plaintiff and the gunman continued to struggle moving toward the rear of the bus and Miss Davis, who was also screaming, attempted to pull the assailant away from plaintiff. In the meantime the driver continued to operate the bus for approximately four blocks without stopping it.

Between Stewart and Normal avenues, four or five blocks west of State Street, the driver opened the rear door of the vehicle at the instant when all three persons, plaintiff, Miss Davis and the gunman, were leaning against it. As they fell from the bus, the gun discharged hitting plaintiff in the abdomen. The gunman escaped and Miss Davis hailed a passerby who summoned police. The driver had stopped his vehicle a short distance away, the remaining passengers disembarked and the driver locked himself in.

Further evidence was admitted showing the extent of plaintiff's injuries and the amount of damages resulting therefrom. At the close of plaintiff's case, defendant's motion for a directed verdict was granted.

Defendant, citing Letsos v. Chicago Transit Authority, 47 Ill.2d 437, 265 N.E.2d 650, now argues that the directed verdict was proper. However, that case involved a factually dissimilar situation. In Letsos, the plaintiff, who was seated near the front of a crowded bus, claimed that a noise at the back of the bus became very loud and as he turned he was hit by a bullet fired from the rear of the vehicle. The driver,...