Delaney v. McDonald's Corp.
| Decision Date | 24 March 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 75880,75880 |
| Citation | 158 Ill.2d 465,634 N.E.2d 749,199 Ill.Dec. 696 |
| Parties | , 199 Ill.Dec. 696 Thomas DELANEY v. McDONALD'S CORPORATION et al. (McDonald's Corporation, Appellant; CECO Corporation et al., Appellees). |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Kiesler & Berman, Chicago (Bryan W. Luce, of counsel), for appellant.
Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess, Chicago (Danette J. Buckley, of counsel), for appellees.
At issue is whether the trial court erred in granting third-party defendant CECO Corporation's (CECO) motion for summary judgment against third-party plaintiff McDonald's Corporation (McDonald's).
The facts which gave rise to this dispute are as follows. On January 17, 1989, plaintiff, Thomas Delaney, filed a complaint against McDonald's, CECO, and others, alleging that he was injured on January 16, 1987, while working on a construction site. He also alleged that the defendants were negligent in connection with the condition of the premises.
McDonald's was served on January 25, 1989. On December 7, 1990, McDonald's moved for leave to file a third-party contribution complaint against Gerhardt F. Meyne Company, CECO, and CECO Industries, Inc., which was granted. The third-party complaint was filed on December 10, 1990, and alleged that the third-party defendants were contractors engaged in construction at the site of third-party plaintiff's office campus, and that if plaintiff had indeed sustained injuries, these were caused by the wrongful acts and/or omissions of the third-party defendants.
On February 15, 1991, CECO moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint with prejudice under Supreme Court Rule 103(b) (134 Ill.2d R. 103(b)) on the basis that it had never been served process. The motion was granted on May 20, 1991, with prejudice since the statute of limitations had run.
CECO then filed a motion for summary judgment in McDonald's contribution action. CECO argued that McDonald's had no right of contribution against it because plaintiff's complaint had been dismissed with prejudice. Summary judgment was granted in favor of CECO on the third-party complaint. The trial court further found that there was no just reason to delay enforcement or appeal of the order, and McDonald's appealed. The appellate court affirmed (249 Ill.App.3d 239, 188 Ill.Dec. 487, 618 N.E.2d 1057), and we granted leave to appeal (134 Ill.2d R. 315). We reverse.
As a preliminary matter, we address CECO's assertion in its brief that, absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court, summary judgment will not be reversed. This is an incorrect statement of the law. In appeals from summary judgment rulings, we conduct a de novo review. (Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (1992), 154 Ill.2d 90, 102, 180 Ill.Dec. 691, 607 N.E.2d 1204.) We now turn to the merits of this case.
The Contribution Act provides for a right of contribution between people who are subject to liability in tort...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berlin v. Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center
...to provide medical services. ANALYSIS In appeals from summary judgment rulings, review is de novo. Delaney v. McDonald's Corp., 158 Ill.2d 465, 467, 199 Ill.Dec. 696, 634 N.E.2d 749 (1994). Summary judgment is to be granted only if the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions, and exh......
-
King v. Paul J. Krez Co.
...upon the trial court's ruling on two motions for summary judgment, we conduct a de novo review. Delaney v. McDonald's Corp., 158 Ill.2d 465, 199 Ill.Dec. 696, 634 N.E.2d 749 (1994). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to......
-
Ccp Ltd. Partnership v. First Source Fin.
...all three complaints. FSFP now appeals. ANALYSIS We review de novo the grant of summary judgment. Delaney v. McDonald's Corp., 158 Ill.2d 465, 467, 199 Ill.Dec. 696, 634 N.E.2d 749 (1994). FSFP contends the LOPA is a participation agreement that gave the Participants no right to revoke prio......
-
Mack v. Ford Motor Co.
...could occur if no warning is given' "). This court reviews summary judgment rulings de novo. Delaney v. McDonald's Corp., 158 Ill.2d 465, 467, 199 Ill.Dec. 696, 697, 634 N.E.2d 749, 750 (1994). Summary judgment will be granted only if the pleadings, affidavits, depositions and admissions on......