Urbas v. Saintco, Inc., 5-91-0296

Decision Date30 June 1994
Docket NumberNo. 5-91-0296,5-91-0296
Citation264 Ill.App.3d 111,636 N.E.2d 1214
Parties, 201 Ill.Dec. 782 Dolores URBAS, Guardian of the Estate and Person of Mitchell S. Urbas, Jr., a Disabled Person, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAINTCO, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 1214

636 N.E.2d 1214
264 Ill.App.3d 111, 201 Ill.Dec. 782
Dolores URBAS, Guardian of the Estate and Person of Mitchell
S. Urbas, Jr., a Disabled Person, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SAINTCO, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 5-91-0296.
Appellate Court of Illinois,
Fifth District.
June 30, 1994.

Page 1216

[264 Ill.App.3d 113] [201 Ill.Dec. 784] Edward J. Szewczyk, Donovan, Rose, Nester & Szewczyk, P.C., Belleville, for appellant.

Harry J. Sterling, Harry J. Sterling, P.C., Fairview Heights, for appellee.

[264 Ill.App.3d 114] Justice GOLDENHERSH delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, Saintco, Inc., appeals from a judgment entered by the circuit court of St. Clair County on a jury verdict in the amount of $1,391,700 in favor of plaintiff, Dolores Urbas, guardian of the estate and person of Mitchell S. Urbas, Jr. (hereinafter Mitch), a disabled adult. On appeal, defendant contends that (1) the circuit court erred in denying its motions for a directed verdict and/or judgment notwithstanding the verdict (judgment n.o.v.), (2) the circuit court erred in directing a verdict against defendant on its affirmative defense that plaintiff's exclusive remedy was workers' compensation, (3) the jury reached its verdict by an impermissible quotient procedure, (4) the verdict was excessive, (5) the circuit court erred in instructing the jury, (6) the circuit court improperly restricted defendant's cross-examination of plaintiff's expert, and (7) the trial court improperly permitted a nonexpert, Mark Prosser, a licensed emergency medical technician (EMT), to express an opinion regarding the cause of Mitch's condition. We affirm.

I. FACTS

As plaintiff aptly points out in her brief, the evidence in this case is full of inconsistencies and overlaps. Therefore, a somewhat exhaustive statement of facts is necessary for a sufficient understanding of this case and necessary to show the jury's verdict is supported by the evidence. Defendant owned and operated an adult entertainment nightclub,

Page 1217

[201 Ill.Dec. 785] P.T.'s, in Sauget. Mitch was an employee of P.T.'s. On the evening of April 28, 1988, Mitch was found on the parking lot of P.T.'s in his car in an unconscious state. He had been missing since the night before when he left his shift early due to illness. Mitch was transported by ambulance to a local hospital where he was diagnosed as being in a coma. He eventually came out of the coma but suffered permanent brain damage. He has no recollection of the events surrounding the onset of his illness and did not testify at trial.

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant for Mitch's injuries. Plaintiff also filed suit against Hal Lowrie, individually, who owned 100% of the stock in P.T.'s. However, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Hal Lowrie; therefore, Hal Lowrie takes no part in this appeal. In its final version, plaintiff's complaint against defendant alleged, in pertinent part:

"4. That at approximately 10:00 p.m. on April 27, 1988, the plaintiff's ward became ill and so advised the management of the defendant.

5. That thereafter, the plaintiff's ward returned to his motor vehicle parked in the parking lot of the defendant in clear view of the defendant's agents and employees.

[264 Ill.App.3d 115] 6. That it was the policy and practice of the defendant to provide security personnel on its parking lot to periodically check the parking lot for any disturbances and for any persons who might have become intoxicated or ill.

7. That the plaintiff's ward collapsed in his motor vehicle and remained in the same from at or about 10:00 p.m. on April 27, 1988, until approximately 10:30 p.m. on April 28, 1988, by which time the plaintiff's ward had become dehydrated from high body temperatures and suffered severe and permanent brain damage therefrom.

8. That the defendant was then and there guilty of one or more of the following negligent acts or omissions:

(a) failed to discover the plaintiff's ward while ill although he could and should have been discovered;

(b) failed to adequately patrol the parking lot of the defendant's business establishment so as to discover persons who were ill;

(c) failed to provide medical attention to the plaintiff's ward in violation of the defendant's standards, policies and procedures;

(d) failed to perform the patrol of the parking lot once it had undertaken to do so for other persons.

9. That as a result of one or more of the foregoing negligent acts or omissions, the plaintiff's ward suffered severe and permanent brain injuries and other anatomical results from dehydration and high fever * * *."

Plaintiff's theory is that a duty to assist Mitch arose by virtue of defendant establishing a courtesy patrol to patrol its parking lot at P.T.'s and to render assistance to those in need. The courtesy patrol was in operation daily between 8 p.m. and 4 a.m. A copy of the written duties of the courtesy patrol was introduced at trial. Art Feole, director of operations for P.T.'s, assisted in authoring the duties of the courtesy patrol, which stated, in pertinent part:

"RESPONSIBILITY

... To insure the safety of the employees, guests, P.T.'s and Roxy's property, the property of the employees and the property of the guests!

* * * * * *

Your primary responsibility is to insure the physical safety of the arriving and departing female employees. They are to be escorted to and from the club. You must have a watch to be aware of the shift changes, which are; 8:00 pm, 9:00 pm, 10:00 pm and closing. When escorting a lady to her vehicle always inspect the interior of the vehicle to insure no potential danger exists.

* * * * * *

[264 Ill.App.3d 116] B.) If any intoxicated person leaves the club and tries to drive, be courteous, but try to discourage the person from driving. Offer to call the courtesy van or a cab. If person agrees, do not leave the person alone. Have him come back into the club with you. Contact Director immediately.

Page 1218

[201 Ill.Dec. 786] He will take care of the guest from there. If the guest is belligerent and refuses your assistance, make a note who, what, where and when (be sure to include license #, color of the car, make, model, and year). Notify the Director immediately.

* * * * * *

E.) Escort all unescorted ladies to and from the club. This includes female guests as well as employees.

F.) At closing time Courtesy Patrol should not be outside of the club without a partner. When clearing the lots, stay close enough to assist each other, should it be necessary. All guests must be off the lot prior to any employees leaving the club. Be alert for guests waiting across the street or on one of the adjacent streets. If you suspect a guest waiting just off the property, advise the Director. If you have a guest that refuses to leave the premises advise the Director, again take notes of who, what, when, where! Any person waiting on the lot who claims to be there to give an employee a ride, take notes and verify this with the employee. If the employee verifies the ride, have the individual wait in the front of the club (Advise your partners of the status of the vehicle). If the employee denies the ride, inform the Director. Once the lot is cleared inform the Director. All female employees are to be escorted from the club to their vehicles. Escort in small groups; make sure that the people being escorted are parked in the same area. Advise the Director of any employee that just walks out without a security escort. Male employees may leave together in groups of 2 or more without a courtesy patrol. All females must have courtesy patrol escort. Advise the Director when all employees are escorted to their vehicles. Remember the closing time is the most critical time of your courtesy patrol shift. Always work in pairs and be aware that your fellow employees are relying on you to insure their physical safety."

Several employees of P.T.'s testified about their understanding of the courtesy patrol.

Harold Lowrie said it was the function of the courtesy patrol to protect employees and their property. Larry Tyler, supervisor of P.T.'s at the time in question, testified that the courtesy patrol operated to greet people, survey parking areas, assist patrons, and patrol the area. Tom Kelly, manager of P.T.'s at the time in question, testified that the courtesy patrol operated to greet guests, escort [264 Ill.App.3d 117] entertainers to cars, and secure the parking lot. Kelly added that courtesy patrolmen had no duty to patrol the lots; however, some patrolmen did patrol the lots while others did not. John Kistner, a bartender at P.T.'s for seven years, testified that it was the duty of the courtesy patrol to ensure that the female employees of the club were able to get into and out of the club without incident. He also stated that he believed it was the patrolmen's responsibility to go up and down the lot looking into cars. Christine Kufskie, a waitress at P.T.'s for five years, testified it was common practice for the courtesy patrolmen to go up and down the parking lots checking the cars. Michael Bloodworth, who occasionally worked as a courtesy patrolman at P.T.'s, would look into the cars of the entertainers he was escorting to their car. As the written responsibilities indicate, closing time at P.T.'s is most critical, and all witnesses agreed that extra precautions were taken at that time to ensure employees' safety.

At trial, conflicting evidence was adduced as to Mitch's activities on the night of April 27, 1988. By all accounts, Mitch was to work from 8 p.m. to 4 a.m. as a courtesy patrolman. As usual, Mitch reported early for work, somewhere between 7 and 7:30 p.m. Sometime between 8 and 9:30 p.m., Mitch told his supervisor, Tom Kelly, that he was not feeling well and wanted to go home. According to Kelly, Mitch waited for his replacement until 10 or 10:30 p.m., at which time Kelly walked Mitch to his car and watched him exit P.T.'s parking lot and drive down Monsanto Avenue to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Carroll v. Preston Trucking Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 15 Junio 2004
    ... ... See Urbas v. Saintco, Inc., 264 Ill.App.3d 111, 201 Ill.Dec. 782, 636 N.E.2d 1214 (1994) ; Statler v ... ...
  • Berg v. Allied Sec., Inc., Chicago
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 29 Junio 1998
    ... ... club from all types of harm that might befall them on the parking lots." (Emphasis added.) Urbas v. Saintco, Inc., 264 Ill.App.3d 111, 126, 201 Ill.Dec. 782, 792, 636 N.E.2d 1214, 1224 (1994). In ... ...
  • Moore ex rel. Moore v. Bi-State Dev. Agency
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 16 Julio 2002
    ... ... Heinen v. Healthline Management, Inc., 982 S.W.2d 244, 247-48 (Mo. banc 1998). A finding of intentional ... Urbas v. Saintco, Inc., 264 Ill. App.3d 111, 201 Ill.Dec. 782, 636 N.E.2d 1214, ... ...
  • Redmon v. Stone
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 2 Agosto 1996
    ... ... 703, 665 N.E.2d 1260 (1996), Decker v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 268 Ill.App.3d 521, 205 Ill.Dec. 959, 644 N.E.2d 515 (1994), and Urbas ... Saintco, Inc., 264 Ill.App.3d 111, 201 Ill.Dec. 782, 636 N.E.2d 1214 (1994). The ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT