Bailey v. Bly
| Decision Date | 01 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 10891 |
| Citation | 231 N.E.2d 8,87 Ill.App.2d 259 |
| Parties | Ruth M. BAILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jerold BLY, Cleo Bly and Vola Bly, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Hanagan & Dousman, Mt. Vernon, for appellant.
Robert Heckenkamp, Gillespie, Burke & Gillespie, Springfield, for appellees.
The plaintiff, Ruth Bailey, suffered personal injuries when she fell down the steps from the front porch of a house owned by her brother, Cleo Bly, and his wife, Vola Bly. Cleo's son, Jerold, lived next door to his parents and owned a dog that was knwon by the name of Lady. Plaintiff fell from the porch as a result of tripping over Lady who was lying in her path as she sought to exit from the house, across the porch and down the stairs. At the time of the event, the plaintiff was carrying a suitcase together with some clothing draped over the suitcase.
Plaintiff sued Cleo and Vola Bly and Jerold Bly. In each case, the action was predicated upon the applicability of ch. 8, sec. 12d, Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, which provides as follows:
The allegations of the complaint were that Cleo and Vola were harborers or keepers of a dog which injured her and that Jerold was its owner. The theory of her action is that the dog statute imposes absolute liability on all of the defendants. Each of the defendants filed motions for summary judgment supported by filing in the trial court of the deposition of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
The trial court granted each of the defendant's motions for summary judgment, entered judgment accordingly, and this appeal is from that order. So far as here relevant, the deposition of the plaintiff establishes that the plaintiff was leaving the home of the defendants Cleo nd Vola Bly, her arms outstretched, and she was holding a suitcase in a flat position and had one suit and two dresses over the suitcase. She started to exit from the door of the house onto the porch and the dog Lady was lying at the door against the screen. She commanded Lady to move, which she did. As abstracted, the deposition of the plaintiff continues:
'I presumed she had moved off the porch but she had not. She had moved to the step which was three or four steps away and layed down. I did not see the dog laying on the top step before I tripped over it. I had no occasion to look down until I got to the steps, and as I assumed 'Lady' would get off the porch, I walked to the steps and tripped over * * *'
The trial court, in granting the motion for summary judgment, determined that the plaintiff was not attacked or injured by the dog in question and therefore the dog statute as above quoted was not applicable, and further found that Cleo Bly and Vola Bly were not harborers or keepers of the dog at the time of the occurrence alleged in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Johnson
...impose strict liability without a factual and reasonable basis `other than as a pure penalty for [horse] ownership.' (Bailey v. Bly, (1967), 87 Ill.App.2d 259, 262.) Nothing in the language of the statute or in the history of the legislation makes it appear that the intent of the statute is......
-
Crosson v. Ruzich
...or passive force.’ " Coe v. Lewsader , 2016 IL App (4th) 150841, ¶ 15, 407 Ill.Dec. 1018, 64 N.E.3d 817 (quoting Bailey v. Bly , 87 Ill. App. 2d 259, 262, 231 N.E.2d 8 (1967) ). The dog must make some overt act toward the plaintiff in order for liability to attach. Coe , 2016 IL App (4th) 1......
-
Lewellin on Behalf of Heirs of Lewellin v. Huber, C5-90-75
...N.E.2d at 168 (construing an older, but substantially similar, version of the Illinois dog-bite statute). See also Bailey v. Bly, 87 Ill.App.2d 259, 231 N.E.2d 8 (1967) (the court refused to apply the statute to a woman who tripped over defendant's dog, stating that there must be behavior o......
-
Vanderlei v. Heideman
...has been held not to apply in several situations where the plaintiff has brought himself within its express terms. In Bailey v. Bly, 87 Ill.App.2d 259, 231 N.E.2d 8 (1967), the court refused to apply the statute to a woman who tripped over defendant's dog which lay down in front of her whil......
-
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: the correct paradigm of strict liability and the problem of individual causation.
...Constr. Co., 670 N.E.2d 940, 945 (Ind. App. 1996). (75.) See Rutland v. Biel, 277 So. 2d 807, 808 (Fla. App. 1973); Bailey v. Bly, 87 Ill. App. 2d 259, 260-61,231 N.E.2d 8, 9 (1967); Smith v. Jett Hill Farm, Inc., 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 338, 341,579 N.E.2d 295, 297 (76.) Jones v. Utica Mut. Ins. ......