Hruby v. Chicago Transit Authority

• Decision Date: 20 March 1957
• Docket Number: No. 34148,34148
• Parties: Frank J. HRUBY, Appellee, v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Appellant.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 81

142 N.E.2d 81

11 Ill.2d 255

Frank J. HRUBY, Appellee, v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Appellant.

No. 34148.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 20, 1957.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing May 20, 1957.

Thomas C. Strachan, Jr., Donald J. O'Brien, Michael A. Gerrard, and James E. Hastings, Chicago, for appellant.

Louis G. Davidson, and Louis P. Miller, Chicago, for appellee.

HERSHEY, Justice.

The issue on this appeal from the superior court of Cook County is whether the defendant, Chicago Transit Authority, is obliged to answer written interrogatories submitted by the plaintiff requesting 'the names and addresses of all persons in possession of defendant who were occurrence witnesses' and 'the names and addresses of all persons in possession of defendant who witnessed plaintiff's injured condition subsequent to the accident until he was removed to the hospital.'

The defendant refused to answer the interrogatories. As a result, the court adjudged it guilty of contempt and assessed a $100 fine.

The appeal is taken directly to this court on the theory that a constitutional question is involved.

This is the second time that this general problem has come before us. In Krupp v. Chicago Transit Authority, 8 Ill.2d 37, 132 N.E.2d 532, we upheld the plaintiff's right to the requested information. This was predicated upon a finding that the scope of discovery under the provisions of the Civil Practice Act, as then in force, permitted a party to ascertain, by written interrogatories, the names of those persons who had first-hand knowledge of the occurrence. After noting that this was broader than that historically available in equity, we said, 8 Ill.2d at page 41, 132 N.E.2d at page 535: 'By its enactment of section 58(2) the General Assembly showed its purpose to broaden substantially the scope of available discovery. It acted in response to prevailing dissatisfaction with procedural doctrines which had exalted the role of a trial as a battle of wits and subordinated its function as a means of ascertaining the truth.'

However, the General Assembly amended section 58 of the Civil Practice Act in 1955, adding the following: 'A party shall not be required to furnish the names or addresses of his witnesses.' (Ill.Rev.Stat. 1955, chap. 110, par. 58). The defendant asserts that this provision excuses it from complying with interrogatories of the type here considered, and further contends that Rules 19-11 and 19-4 of this court are invalid to the extent that they are inconsistent with the statute. Rule 19-11 provides, in part, as follows: '(1) Service of Interrogatories. Any party may serve upon any adverse party written interrogatories to be answered by the party served or, if the party served is a public or private corporation or a partnership or association, by any officer, partner or agent * * * (4) Scope and Use. Interrogatories may relate to any matters which might be inquired into by deposition.' And Rule 19-4 reads: '(1) Discovery Depositions. Upon a discovery deposition, the deponent may be examined regarding any matter, not privileged, relating to the merits of the matter in litigation, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the examining party or of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any documents or tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts.' Ill.Rev.Stat. 1955, chap. 110, pars. 101.19-11, 101-19-4.

The rules are not inconsistent with the statute. For, as we observed in the Krupp case, 8 Ill.2d at page 39, 132 N.E.2d at page 534, 'The interrogatories use the term 'witness' in the primary sense of those who have personal knowledge of the event and not in the technical sense of those who are to be called to testify at the trial. The distinction is that which was drawn by this court in drafting the present Rule 19-4. (Compare Ill.Rev.Stat. 1955, chap. 110, par. 58, with par. 101.19-4).' (Emphasis added.)...