Davis v. Ruff
Decision Date | 15 April 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 78-2158,78-2158 |
Citation | 404 N.E.2d 405,83 Ill.App.3d 651,39 Ill.Dec. 21 |
Parties | , 39 Ill.Dec. 21 Michael J. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen L. RUFF and William S. Grotefeld, d/b/a Ruff & Grotefeld, Limited, Paul Houstrup and Marilyn Houstrup, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Wayne B. Giampietro, Chicago (DeJong, Poltrock & Giampietro, Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
Hinshaw, Culbertson, Moelmann, Hoban & Fuller, Chicago (D. Kendall Griffith, Dennis J. Horan, George W. Spellmire, Chicago, of counsel), for defendants-appellees, Stephen Ruff and William Grotefeld.
Leonard M. Ring and Associates, Chicago (Leonard M. Ring, Patricia T. Adelman, Chicago, of counsel), for defendants-appellees Houstrups.
Plaintiff, Michael J. Davis, M.D. (Davis), brought this malicious prosecution suit against defendants Marilyn and Paul Houstrup (the Houstrups) and their attorneys Stephen L. Ruff and William S. Grotefeld (Ruff & Grotefeld). Defendants moved for summary judgments claiming Davis failed to state a cause of action. The trial court granted defendants' motion. Davis appeals.
The salient issue before this court is whether Davis has alleged sufficient injury to satisfy the damage requirement for a malicious prosecution action.
The Houstrups, through their attorneys, Ruff & Grotefeld, sued Davis alleging medical negligence in his treatment of their daughter, Nina. Davis, an ophthamologist, had performed cosmetic surgery upon Nina to correct an outward deviation of her eyes known as extropia or "lazy eye." Nina subsequently began to complain of double vision and repeated visits to Davis' office for treatment failed to alleviate that complaint. The resulting medical negligence action was, however, dismissed because the Houstrups failed to answer Davis' interrogatories regarding the name of their expert witness.
Almost one year after the dismissal of the Houstrups' suit, Davis filed this action for damages. The trial court found, as a matter of law, that the prior suit was brought with probable cause and without malice; that it was terminated on grounds other than its merits; and that Davis failed to allege sufficient injury to maintain a cognizable claim. The trial court then granted summary judgments for all defendants.
I.
We address only Davis' claim that he has alleged facts sufficient to establish the element of special injury because resolution of that issue is dispositive of this appeal.
Davis claims the prior suit has caused him to suffer damage to his reputation; to suffer mental anguish; to spend time in his own defense; to pay increased medical malpractice insurance premiums; and to alter the manner in which he practices medicine. 1 He argues that these injuries are, or should be, sufficient to satisfy the element of damages in a claim for malicious prosecution. We disagree.
We recently reviewed the settled Illinois case law governing claims in the nature of malicious prosecution in Stopka v. Lesser (1st Dist., 1980), 82 Ill.App.3d 323, 37 Ill.Dec. 779, 402 N.E.2d 781. This court stated there that a claimant must allege, inter alia, special injury which arises from the malicious prosecution of a prior suit. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gonzalez v. Chicago Steel Rule Die & Fabricators Co.
...prosecution actions (Bank of Lyons v. Schultz (1980), 78 Ill.2d 235, 35 Ill.Dec. 758, 399 N.E.2d 1286; Davis v. Ruff (1980), 83 Ill.App.3d 651, 39 Ill.Dec. 21, 404 N.E.2d 405; Stopka v. Lesser (1980), 82 Ill.App.3d 323, 37 Ill.Dec. 779, 402 N.E.2d 781; Savage v. Seed (1980), 81 Ill.App.3d 7......
-
Lasswell v. Ehrlich
...to the "special injury" contemplated as an element of an action for malicious prosecution. See, e. g., Davis v. Ruff (1980), 83 Ill.App.3d 651, 39 Ill.Dec. 21, 404 N.E.2d 405 (damage to reputation, mental anguish, time spent in defending suit, increased medical malpractice insurance premium......