Clark v. Fields
| Decision Date | 18 May 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 40223,40223 |
| Citation | 229 N.E.2d 676,37 Ill.2d 583 |
| Parties | Bobby Ray CLARK et al., Appellees, v. William B. FIELDS, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Johnson, Ducey & Feder, Belleville, for appellant.
Kassly, Weihl, Carr & Bone, East St. Louis, for appellees.
This action was instituted by Bobby Ray Clark and Warren H. Jordan to recover the fair market value of their airplane from William B. Fields, on whose property it was when destroyed by fire. A St. Clair County jury returned a verdict for defendant on which judgment was entered following denial of plaintiffs' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. On appeal, the Fifth District Appellate Court reversed by a divided vote and entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs for $4,500. (73 Ill.App.2d 369, 219 N.E.2d 162.) Mr. Justice Goldenhersh, dissenting, believed the evidence presented a question for the jury and would have affirmed. Defendant sought and we granted leave to appeal.
In August of 1962, plaintiffs owned a Tri-Pacer airplane, which was required by F.A.A. regulations to be inspected annually. Defendant was licensed to make the necessary inspection and had agreed to do so, apparently for the customary fee of $70--$80. Upon inspection he determined that the plane needed re-covering, as the fabric would not pass the test. As plaintiffs had neither the tools and equipment nor know-how to do the job, defendant offered to supply both if they wished to do it themselves. Plaintiffs accepted this offer. The wings of the plane were removed and taken by truck to defendant's basement. Defendant towed the fuselage to his house, and it too was placed in his basement and left there during the 1962--63 winter while plaintiffs re-covered the plane. In February defendant took the fuselage to a body shop where plaintiffs painted it. After it dried, he brought it back to his house and placed it in his back yard. It was then covered, in whole or part, with a piece of plastic. Defendant did not charge for the use of his tools, his equipment or his advice.
On March 8 defendant, without using a container, burned some trash in an area in his back yard which he customarily used for this purpose. This area was about 15 to 20 feet from where the fuselage stood on apparently higher ground and part of the intervening area was occupied by what is variously referred to as a 'ravine,' 'ditch' and 'gulley'. There was dry, apparently short, grass all through the ditch and around the plane. Portions of the fire were still smoldering when defendant's wife, who needed help moving a refrigerator, called him into the house. While he was there, his wife looked out the window and saw that the plane was on fire. When defendant reached it, the grass between the trash-burning area and the plane was burning, as was that surrounding the plane.
The fuselage of the plane was wholly destroyed. However, the wings and stabilizer were not attached to the fuselage at the time of the fire and were not damaged. The motor had some salvage value. Howard L. Gault, a dealer in planes, placed the value of the entire plane at $5,000 and the value of the fuselage at $4,700. While he felt that the wings and stabilizer were worth about $300, he said that there was not much of a market for that sort of thing. Defendant placed the value of the plane between $4,500 and $5,500. He agreed with Gault as to the value of the wings and stabilizer and also that there was not much of a market for them. While Gault was not asked concerning the salvage value of the engine, defendant said that it was not worth more than $150. Bobby Ray Clark, the only plaintiff who testified, did not attempt to estimate the value of the plane, but did say this bids of around $300 were made for the wings.
Although plaintiff places a great deal of stress on the principles of the law of bailments, their only significance here is to create a presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant upon the showing by plaintiff of delivery of the plane to defendant and his failure to return it. (Miles v. International...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Celanese Corp. of America v. Vandalia Warehouse Corp.
...negligence with evidence of due care. Miles v. International Hotel Co., 289 Ill. 320, 327-328, 124 N.E. 599 (1919); Clark v. Fields, 37 Ill.2d 583, 586, 229 N.E.2d 676 (1967). In this case, Celanese presented evidence of Vandalia's negligence which warranted submission of the case to the Th......
-
Watson v. Byerly Aviation, Inc.
... ... Clark v. Fields, 37 Ill.2d 583, 229 N.E.2d 676. In the case at bar the jury was in effect instructed that the plaintiff was entitled to recover if he ... ...
-
Gullett v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company
...set aside verdicts contrary to the weight of evidence has been commented upon in 56 Ill.B.J. 782, 786 (1968). See also Clark v. Feld, 37 Ill.2d 583, 229 N.E.2d 676 (1967). 8 See e. g., Anderson v. Indiana Lumbermen's Mutual Ins. Co., 127 So.2d 304, 306 9 All experts agreed that if rain redu......
-
Ortiz v. Warren Chevrolet, Inc.
... ... (Clark v. Fields, 37 Ill.2d 583, 586, 229 N.E.2d 676.) The defendant correctly observes, further, that a bailee for hire is not an insurer of the bailed ... ...