Blue v. St. Clair Country Club, 33612

Citation131 N.E.2d 31,7 Ill.2d 359
Decision Date23 November 1955
Docket NumberNo. 33612,33612
PartiesNella M. BLUE et al., Appellants, v. ST. CLAIR COUNTRY CLUB, Appellee.
CourtSupreme Court of Illinois

Walker & Williams, and Kramer, Campbell, Costello & Weichert, East St. Louis (Ralph D. Walker, Norman J. Gundlach, and R. E. Costello, East St. Louis, of counsel), for appellants.

Pope & Driemeyer, East St. Louis (Frank M. Rain, East St. Louis, of counsel), for appellee.

DAILY, Justice.

The plaintiffs filed suit in the circuit court of St. Clair County to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by Nella Blue as a result of the defendant's negligence and for incidental damages suffered by her husband, Charles Blue, as a consequence thereof. The defendant, in its answer, denied any liability whatsoever for the reason that these injuries resulted either from an act of God or from the plaintiffs' own negligence. Trial by jury resulted in verdicts and judgments being entered for the plaintiffs in the amount of $25,000 and $3,000 respectively. Upon review, the Appellate Court for the Fourth District reversed this judgment and held that the injuries were sustained without fault on the part of the defendant. 4 Ill.App.2d 284, 124 N.E.2d 346. Leave to appeal was thereafter granted by this court.

There is little dispute as to the facts involved. The plaintiffs were members of the defendant country club. On July 13, 1952, they, accompanied by their nine-year-old son, arrived at the club shortly after noon, whereupon Charles Blue proceeded to play golf, and Nella Blue and the son alternately swam in the pool and sun bathed. At approximately 3:30 o'clock p. m., Nella Blue was sitting with three other women at a table some distance from the pool when the sky became somewhat cloudy and overcast. Two of these ladies proceeded to the clubhouse while Nella and the fourth lady stood up and called to their children who were still swimming. As she did so, Nella also reached for the table umbrella with the intention of collapsing it. However, at that instant, a sudden gust of wind caught the umbrella, hoisted it some 10 to 15 feet into the air, and blew the table against the plaintiff, knocking her to the ground.

The defendant country club was using two different varieties of table umbrellas at this time. The kind that was at the plaintiff's table and which was most prevalent, was called the spear type. In addition, an auger type umbrella was also being used. Although they were similar in size, shape, and appearance, and although both were mounted upon shafts which were inserted through a hole in the table top, they differed materially in the manner by which they were attached. The former had a pointed shaft which was held upright by being jammed into the earth to a depth of from 1 to 1 1/2 inches. The shaft of the latter type, however, was bolted into a screw fixture, which was itself buried from 12 to 18 inches into the ground. Only the spear type was, of course, movable.

There was evidence to show that it was not at all uncommon for the spear type umbrella to be tilted or blown over by the wind. In fact, a former club employee testified that 'Any time we had a wind come up the same thing would happen. They would tilt over the tables and fall on the tables and I would have to go out and fix them back again by stabbing them into the ground.' This witness also stated that prior to the plaintiff's injury, he had called this problem to the attention of a club official. A club member testified: 'If there was a breeze, the pointed type of umbrellas would blow down and hit the table and would sometimes blow along the ground. The umbrellas would blow away. I had seen that happen frequently before July 13, 1952, on days when it would be windy.' No such complaints however was heard of the auger variety.

In order to recover in this case, it was necessary for the plaintiffs to allege and prove (1) that a negligent act was committed by the defendant, (2) that such act was the proximate cause of the injuries incurred, and (3) that they were not contributorily negligent. If there is any evidence which, when taken with its intendments most favorable to the plaintiffs, tends to prove these essential allegations of the complaint, the reversal by the Appellate Court was unwarranted. Sims v. Chicago Transit Authority, 4 Ill.2d 60, 122 N.E.2d 221; Ruspantini v. Steffek, 414 Ill. 70, 110 N.E.2d 198; Mirich v. T. J. Forschner Contracting Co., 312 Ill. 343, 143 N.E. 846, 33 A.L.R. 1. This is the question which we must now consider.

When a person invites another upon his premises, the law imposes a duty upon that person to exercise reasonable care for his visitor's safety and to warn the visitor of any defects which are not readily apparent. Ellguth v. Blackstone Hotel, Inc., 408 Ill. 343, 97 N.E.2d 290; Pauckner v. Wakem, 231 Ill. 276, 83 N.E. 202, 14 L.R.A.,N.S., 1118. This applies not only to known defects but also to those conditions which could have been known had the landowner used reasonable care. 65 C.J.S., Negligence, § 45, p. 526; Restatement of Torts, vol. II, sec. 343. Neither can this duty to inspect be shifted to the invitee. As is said in Restatement of Torts, vol. II, sec. 343(f): 'A possessor who holds his land open to others for his own business purposes, must possess and exercise a knowledge of the dangerous qualities of the place itself and the appliances provided therein, which is not required of his patrons.' In this case, several witnesses testified that it was not uncommon for the spear-type umbrellas to blow over and upset the tables to which they were attached. Evidence was offered showing that the defendant knew this to be a fact prior to the time of the plaintiff's misfortune. Although no previous injuries had resulted from either a flying umbrella or falling table, such could, upon these facts, have been reasonably anticipated. This is especially true when we consider that the umbrella shaft was spear-shape in design and that children were commonly on the premises. Of course, in this case, the plaintiff was not struck by the umbrella. However, in order for liability to attach, it is not necessary that the exact method by which the injury occurred could have been expected. It is sufficient if some...

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 cases
  • Marshall v. Burger King Corp.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • June 22, 2006
    ...Telephone & Telegraph Co., 34 Cal.3d 49, 57-58, 665 P.2d 947, 952, 192 Cal.Rptr. 857, 862 (1983); see also Blue v. St. Clair Country Club, 7 Ill.2d 359, 364, 131 N.E.2d 31 (1955) ("[I]n order for liability to attach, it is not necessary that the exact method by which the injury occurred cou......
  • Nelson by Tatum v. Commonwealth Edison Co.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 4, 1984
    ...However, plaintiffs argue that the "foreseeability" requirement does not refer to the method of injury. (Blue v. Saint Clair Country Club (1955), 7 Ill.2d 359, 364, 131 N.E.2d 31; Del Raso v. Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Ry. Co. (1967), 84 Ill.App.2d 344, 362, 228 N.E.2d 470; Ray v. Cock Robin......
  • Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 508 v. Lybrand
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • December 18, 2003
    ...and disclose violations of the Board's investment policies is a factual question for the jury to decide. Blue v. St. Clair Country Club, 7 Ill.2d 359, 366, 131 N.E.2d 31 (1955). The evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that Coopers relied on the truth of the representations as a......
  • Mort v. Walter
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • October 21, 1983
    ...reason why it should not also apply for the purpose of proving a plaintiff's allegation of negligence. (Cf. Blue v. St. Clair Country Club (1955), 7 Ill.2d 359, 366, 131 N.E.2d 31 ("Negligence may result in a variety of ways. One may not escape liability by refusing to recognize the danger"......
  • 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