Coffey v. ABC Liquor Stores, Inc.
| Decision Date | 15 May 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 57-F-9,57-F-9 |
| Citation | 13 Ill.App.2d 510,142 N.E.2d 705 |
| Parties | Guy COFFEY and Rebecca Coffey, Plaintiffs, v. ABC LIQUOR STORES, Inc., a Corporation, John Oglesby, Marie Wolfinbarger and William Jr. Hatchett, Defendants. ABC LIQUOR STORES, Inc., a Corporation, John Oglesby and Marie Wolfinbarger, Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Troy CALVERT, Jr., Third-Party Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Frank G. Schubert, Springfield, DeWitt Twente, Harrisburg, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Charles J. Smith, Jr., Graham, Califf & Harper, Moline (David A. Warford, Marion, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.
This action arises from an original complaint filed by plaintiffs, Guy Coffey and Rebecca Coffey, against ABC Liquor Stores, Inc., a Corporation, John Oglesby, Marie Wolfinbarger and William Jr. Hatchett, four defendant tavern operators, under the provisions of the Illinois Dram Shop Act. The complaint is in two counts, one on behalf of Guy Coffey, and the other on behalf of his wife, Rebecca. The complaint alleges that the defendants sold or gave alcoholic liquors which in whole or in part caused intoxication of Troy Calvert, Jr., and that while in that condition he assaulted and beat Guy Coffey and injured him. The action of Guy Coffey is for personal injuries, and that of his wife seeks damages for injury to her means of support.
This case took an unusual turn when within the time for filing their answer, three of the defendants, ABC Liquor Stores, Inc., a Corporation, John Oglesby, and Marie Wolfinbarger, brought Troy Calvert, Jr. in as a third-party defendant, by filing a third-party complaint against him. In this complaint they allege that if they are held liable to the plaintiffs that it would be only for damages caused by the tortious action of Calvert, and that they themselves were not guilty of any wrongful conduct; and since their liability is entirely statutory, they would have a right to recover against Calvert by way of indemnification.
Calvert filed a motion to dismiss or strike the third-party complaint and this motion was granted by the Trial Court on the grounds that the third-party complaint failed to state a cause of action for indemnification or contribution against Calvert, and that the inclusion of a third-party complaint in the proceeding would have been an imposition on the plaintiffs in the original Dram Shop action. The third-party plaintiffs stood by their complaint and the Court entered judgment against such plaintiffs and in favor of the third-party defendant as to such complaint.
On appeal in this Court the third-party plaintiffs contend that the complaint states a cause of action showing that they would have a right to indemnification against Calvert in the event they are held liable, and that the rule which in some situations bars a right of indemnification as between tort-feasors does not apply in this case because the complaint against the tavern operators is not based upon their being tort-feasors, but is purely statutory, without any reference to wrong doing or tortious conduct; and secondly, that the damages would have been caused by the active misconduct of Calvert rather than the tavern operators and that, therefore, under the Illinois law they should have a right to recover against this individual for damages.
Under the Illinois Civil Practice Act, within the time for filing an answer, a defendant may, without leave of Court, file a third-party complaint against one who is liable to such parties by reason of the institution of the original action (1955 Illinois Revised Statutes, Illinois Civil Practice Act, Chapter 110, Section 25, Paragraph 2), and if the Court feels that the consolidation of a third-party action with the original action may inconvenience the original plaintiff or prejudice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Chicago v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
...parties free from wrongdoing themselves to assert rights of subrogation against third parties. See Coffey v. ABC Liquor Stores, Inc., 13 Ill.App.2d 510, 142 N.E.2d 705 (4th Dist. 1957). It is, of course, a matter of dispute whether the putative subrogee, American, or the third parties, Weye......
-
Wessel v. Carmi Elks Home, Inc.
...active cause of the damages. This issue has caused several appellate courts to reach divergent results. In Coffey v. ABC Liquor Stores, Inc. (1957), 13 Ill.App.2d 510, 142 N.E.2d 705 (leave to appeal denied, 11 Ill.2d 629), a dramshop action was brought against four tavern operators seeking......
-
Colligan v. Cousar
...in the Eldridge case, and holds that the Minnesota Dram Shop Act may be given extraterritorial application. In Coffey v. ABC Liquor Stores, 13 Ill.App.2d 510, 142 N.E.2d 705, the court held that the tavern keeper was not entitled to indemnity in a third party action against the intoxicated ......
-
Wessel v. Carmi Elks Home, Inc.
...indemnification will not be allowed a dram shop keeper or owner for liability imposed by the Dram Shop Act. Coffey v. ABC Liquor Stores (1957), 13 Ill.App.2d 510, 142 N.E.2d 705. The court there noted that the regulations of the Dram Shop Act are established for the purpose of protection of......