Beck v. Stepp

• Decision Date: 19 September 1991
• Docket Number: No. 70312,70312
• Citation: 162 Ill.Dec. 10,144 Ill.2d 232,579 N.E.2d 824
• Parties: , 162 Ill.Dec. 10 James J. BECK, Appellee, v. Christine A. STEPP et al. (Bob Brockland Pontiac-GMC, Inc., Appellant).
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 824

579 N.E.2d 824 144 Ill.2d 232, 162 Ill.Dec. 10 James J. BECK, Appellee,
v.
Christine A. STEPP et al. (Bob Brockland Pontiac-GMC, Inc.,
Appellant). No. 70312. Supreme Court of Illinois. Sept. 19, 1991.

Page 825

[144 Ill.2d 234] [162 Ill.Dec. 11] Hinshaw & Culbertson, Bruce L. Carmen, Chicago, for Bob Brockland Pontiac-GMC.

Gregory K. Allsberry, Susman, Schermer, Rimmel & Shifrin, St. Louis, Mo., Dunham, Boman & Leskera, John L. Bitzer, East St. Louis, for James J. Beck.

[144 Ill.2d 235] Chief Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff, James J. Beck, brought the present action in the circuit court of St.

Page 826

[162 Ill.Dec. 12] Clair County against the defendants, Christine Stepp and Bob Brockland Pontiac-GMC, Inc. The plaintiff sought compensation for property damage and personal injuries he sustained as the result of a collision between his motorcycle and an automobile driven by Stepp and owned by Brockland. Following a hearing, the trial judge granted defendant Brockland's motion for summary judgment. Four months later, the trial judge entered an order purportedly denying the same motion nunc pro tunc. A divided panel of the appellate court ruled that the nunc pro tunc modification was proper and accordingly dismissed Brockland's appeal for lack of a final order. (197 Ill.App.3d 1109 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).) We allowed Brockland's petition for leave to appeal (134 Ill.2d R. 315(a)).

Defendant Bob Brockland Pontiac-GMC, Inc., an automobile dealership, allows its sales staff to use demonstration cars for personal purposes. On November 1, 1986, Tom Suarez, a Brockland salesman, used the automobile assigned to him to drive to a party, where he consumed several alcoholic drinks. Later that night, Suarez felt unfit to drive and asked a friend, Christine Stepp, to operate the Brockland automobile. While she was driving the car, Stepp struck the plaintiff's motorcycle from the rear when the plaintiff was stopped at a red light. The accident occurred shortly after 1 o'clock in the morning on November 2, 1986, at an intersection in East St. Louis township, in St. Clair County.

Plaintiff commenced the present action on March 25, 1987, by filing a complaint in the circuit court of St. Clair County. Named as defendants in the action were [144 Ill.2d 236] Brockland and Stepp. Plaintiff alleged that Stepp, as driver of the car, was Brockland's agent. Brockland later filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that the dealership was not vicariously liable for Stepp's conduct because she was not the company's agent. A hearing on the motion was conducted by way of a telephone conference call on April 6, 1988. Following the call, the trial judge entered an order granting Brockland summary judgment. The order stated:

"D BROCKLAND'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT--ALLOWED. NO JUST CAUSE TO PREVENT APPEAL (APPEA[LA]BLE ORDER)"

At Brockland's request, the trial judge entered an order on April 12, 1988, stating, in the language of Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (107 Ill.2d R. 304(a)), that there was "no just reason for delaying enforcement or appeal of the Court Order entered April 6, 1988 granting Bob Brockland Pontiac-GMC, Inc.'s motion for Summary Judgment." For reasons that are not clear from the record, the trial judge entered a duplicate order two days later, on April 14.

On April 15 the trial judge received a letter from plaintiff's counsel, dated the previous day. Counsel's letter stated:

"On Wednesday, April 6, the Court held a conference call with counsel for the parties pertaining to Brockland's Motion for Summary Judgment. I...