Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > Smith v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.

Smith v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.

Case Date: 12/27/2005
Court: 5th District Appellate
Docket No: 5-04-0411 NRel

NO. 5-04-0411

Notice
Decision filed 12/27/05. The text of
this decision may be changed or
corrected prior to the filing of a
Petition for Rehearing or the
disposition of the same.

IN THE



APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS



FIFTH DISTRICT

MARVIN SMITH, ROBERTA SMITH, PAM
RUNNELLS, MARK CHANEY, TEDDIE
MAXTON, MAX DEARMAN, THOMAS
TRIGG, CHERYL TRIGG, KLAUDINE
KWIATAKOWSKI, LARRY GALBRAITH,
and SHIRLEY GALBRAITH, All Individually
and as Representatives of All Persons and
Entities Who Are Members of the Class
Described Herein,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD
COMPANY, d/b/a CANADIAN NATIONAL/
ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD,

Defendant-Appellant.

 )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)		 Appeal from the
Circuit Court of
Perry County.

 

 

No. 04-L-27

 

 



Honorable
Michael J. O'Malley,
Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE DONOVAN delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiffs filed a negligence action against the defendant, Illinois Central RailroadCompany, doing business as Canadian National/Illinois Central Railroad (the railroad), in thecircuit court of Perry County, Illinois, on behalf of themselves and those persons andbusinesses who sustained personal injuries and property damages as a result of the derailmentof the railroad's freight train in Tamaroa, Illinois, on February 9, 2003. The plaintiffs movedto certify the case as a class action. The circuit court granted the motion and the railroadappealed. On appeal, the railroad contends that the circuit court applied an erroneous legalstandard or abused its discretion in finding that the class satisfied the commonality andnumerosity requirements for class certification, and it further contends that the ordercertifying the class must be reversed because the class definition does not specify theconditions for class membership in clear and objective terms.

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

According to the record, 11 plaintiffs sought to bring an action against the railroad inthe circuit court of Perry County on behalf of themselves and those persons and businesseswho sustained injuries and damages as a result of the derailment of the railroad's freight trainin Tamaroa, Illinois. The complaint contains counts for negligence, res ipsa loquitur,nuisance, abnormally dangerous activity, and trespass. It includes the following factualallegations. On Sunday, February 9, 2003, 21 cars on the railroad's northbound freight trainderailed in Tamaroa, Illinois. Tank cars carrying hydrochloric acid, vinyl chloride, methanol,and a methanol/formaldehyde mixture ruptured, and the contents thereof were spilled intothe surrounding environment, including the ground, water, and air. Some of the carscontaining methanol caught fire and burned. As a result of the chemical spill, the area withina three-mile radius of the derailment was subject to a mandatory evacuation and more than1,000 Tamaroa residents were evacuated. Additional discharges or leaks occurred at thederailment site subsequent to February 9, 2003, including on February 20, 2003, and May 7,2003.

The plaintiffs moved for class status and the railroad objected. Following a hearing,the circuit court granted the motion to certify the class. The certification order identified theclass as follows: "All persons, firms, and legal entities residing, maintaining a place ofbusiness, owning property, employed or attending school, or otherwise present in or in thevicinity of Tamaroa, Illinois, or its environs on or after February 9, February 20, or May 7,2003, and who or which have sustained legally cognizable compensatory or punitive damagesor may incur or may claim to have incurred legally cognizable compensatory or punitivedamages as a proximate result of the Canadian National train derailment which occurred onFebruary 9, 2003, in Tamaroa, Illinois." The railroad sought interlocutory review. Weinitially denied the railroad's petition for leave to appeal on August 12, 2004. The railroadthen petitioned for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. The Illinois Supreme Courtdenied the petition but issued a supervisory order directing this court to vacate the orderdenying interlocutory review and to consider the class certification issue on the merits. Smithv. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 212 Ill. 2d 554, 817 N.E.2d 893 (2004) (supervisory order).

II. ANALYSIS

A. The Class Certification Requirements

Created in the English courts of chancery as a convenient tool to afford partial justiceto parties unable to join under the then-compulsory joinder rules, class action suits have beenrecognized as an acceptable method in appropriate cases to advance the efficiency andeconomy of litigation, which is a principal purpose of the procedure. See Hansberry v. Lee,311 U.S. 32, 41-42, 85 L. Ed 2d 22, 27, 61 S. Ct. 115, 118 (1940); 1 A. Conte & H.Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions