Kahle v. John Deere Co.
Decision Date | 30 November 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 59574,59574 |
Citation | 84 Ill.Dec. 650,104 Ill.2d 302,472 N.E.2d 787 |
Parties | , 84 Ill.Dec. 650 Gary KAHLE, Appellee, v. JOHN DEERE COMPANY et al., Appellants. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Bozeman, Neighbour, Patton & Noe, Moline, for appellants; Robert J. Noe, Max D. Cartwright, Moline, of counsel.
Ronald G. Fleisher, Karlin & Fleisher, Ltd., Chicago, for appellee; David A. Novoselsky, Chicago, of counsel.
The first question to be answered is whether the voluntary dismissal of a case under section 2-1009 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 110, par. 2-1009) is a final order appealable by the defendant. If the dismissal is appealable, then we must decide whether trial or hearing had begun in this case.
On June 30, 1975, plaintiff, Gary Kahle, was injured while working with a portable grain elevator which had an undercarriage manufactured by the defendants, John Deere Company and Deere & Company (Deere), related corporations. In April 1977 he filed a products liability suit in the circuit court of Cook County. In June 1978 defendants' motion transferring venue to Ford County was granted, and in January 1979 venue was again transferred, this time on the plaintiff's motion, to the circuit court of Rock Island County. The matter was set for trial on March 14, 1983. Pretrial motions, including motions in limine by both the plaintiff and the defendants, were heard on March 9, and again on March 14. The trial judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff on some motions and in favor of the defendants on others. After the noon recess on March 14, and before the jury had been selected, the plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss his case without prejudice under section 2-1009. Over the defendants' objection that trial had begun, and that therefore the plaintiff could not dismiss without prejudice under section 2-1009, the circuit judge dismissed without prejudice. He noted, "the Court feels that, pursuant to the cases that * * * have been decided, that the Court would have to * * * find that this trial has not commenced, and as far as the definition of the Section 2-1009 is concerned, and that, therefore, the Court is without discretion and must grant the nonsuit."
The defendants appealed, and the appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice was not a final, appealable order. (119 Ill.App.3d 850, 75 Ill.Dec. 369, 457 N.E.2d 159.) We granted defendants' petition for leave to appeal (87 Ill.2d R. 315).
The defendants urge that a section 2-1009 dismissal is a final, appealable order, and that the dismissal in this case was erroneously granted because trial had already begun. Although we did not decide the issue, we have stated that such an order might be final for purposes of appeal even though it is without prejudice to the bringing of a new action (Galowich v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (1982), 92 Ill.2d 157, 161, 65 Ill.Dec. 405, 441 N.E.2d 318 ( )). The plaintiff counters that our holding in Flores v. Dugan (1982), 91 Ill.2d 108, 61 Ill.Dec. 783, 435 N.E.2d 480, reiterated in Wold v. Bull Valley Management Co. (1983), 96 Ill.2d 110, 70 Ill.Dec. 238, 449 N.E.2d 112, which involved involuntary dismissals, controls the disposition of this appeal even though it involves a voluntary dismissal. Thus, the plaintiff argues that a voluntary dismissal is not final and appealable or, in the alternative, that even if the order is appealable, it was proper because it was entered before trial or hearing began in this case. We agree with the defendants that this dismissal is appealable by the defendants, but since we find that trial or hearing had not begun, we must affirm the conclusion of the circuit court and vacate the appellate court order.
In Flores this court held that a dismissal for want of prosecution was not a final, appealable order. The original verdict for the plaintiff was set aside by the granting of a motion for a new trial. When the identical issue was raised in Wold, this court stated that Flores controlled.
Flores and Wold are distinguishable and do not control this case. A dismissal for want of prosecution is a sanction which issues against a plaintiff. As the court noted in Flores, any prejudice suffered by the plaintiff is easily remediable. The statute of limitations provides that the plaintiff has the absolute right to refile his case within one year (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 83, par. 24a, now Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 110, par. 13-217); moreover, the order entered stated that it was a dismissal without prejudice. The rationale of the Flores opinion was that even if the trial judge abused his discretion in dismissing the case, the plaintiff, if he refiled, ultimately was not prejudiced.
By contrast, where, as here, the plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed his case, it is the defendant who may be prejudiced. Section 2-1009 provides that the plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice "at any time before trial or hearing begins." (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 110, par. 2-1009.) If trial or hearing has begun, then under this section, the plaintiff can dismiss only "on terms fixed by the court," one of which, of course, could be dismissal with prejudice. Thus, whether trial or hearing has begun is not a matter of discretion but rather a substantial legal question which determines whether the court erred by not deciding if any conditions should have been imposed on the dismissal.
This order cannot be appealed by the plaintiff since he requested the order, and following the logic of Flores and Wold, he is protected from prejudice by the statute of limitations which gives him the absolute right to refile the case within one year of a voluntary dismissal without prejudice (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 110, par. 13-217). (Cf. Yoffe v. Keller Industries, Inc. (5th Cir.1978), 580 F.2d 126; LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc. (5th Cir.1976), 528 F.2d 601 ( ).) As to the defendants, however, the situation is different. The defendants' rights may have been prejudiced by the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal, but the defendants have no recourse unless they can appeal. If there is no review of the case, no court will be able to determine whether the trial judge correctly decided that trial or hearing had not begun and therefore correctly entered an order dismissing the case without prejudice. Although the plaintiff has refiled his case in Cook County, the new case is a separate cause of action. The new circuit judge has no jurisdiction to review the propriety of the dismissal of the earlier case by another circuit judge. (Cf. People ex rel. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Gitchoff (1976), 65 Ill.2d 249, 257, 2 Ill.Dec. 367, 357 N.E.2d 534; People ex rel. East Side Levee and Sanitary District v. Madison County Levee and Sanitary District (1973), 54 Ill.2d 442, 445, 298 N.E.2d 177.) That is properly a matter for a reviewing court. Farrell v. Dome Laboratories (Alaska 1982), 650 P.2d 380; Board of Commissioners v. Nevitt (Ind.App.1983), 448 N.E.2d 333 ( ).
For these reasons we hold that this order is final and appealable by the defendants, and therefore we must also decide whether trial or hearing had begun. The defendants suggest that trial began when the judge ruled on motions in limine on the date set for trial. They argue that the plaintiff should not be allowed to "test the waters" and then voluntarily dismiss the case after he receives adverse rulings. The defendants, who do not control the progress of the case, point out that they expended time and money in preparation for trial, and relied upon the trial judge's representation that this was a firm trial date. After the plaintiff's motion for a continuance was denied, the plaintiff then moved to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice, intending to refile the case again. The defendants complain that they must now prepare again and expend more time and money.
While it is unfortunate that the defendants have been inconvenienced, that sometimes happens in our adversary system. As long as the dismissal order is subject to review, the defendants have suffered no legal prejudice. As the plaintiff points out, he could have voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on the morning set for trial, before the motions in limine were heard; there would have been no question that trial or hearing had not begun at that point. Yet, the case would still have been prepared and the clients' money expended before the "trial date." Whatever additional time and expense were involved in the two-hour proceeding that morning, trial still had not begun. At common law, the plaintiff could voluntarily dismiss without prejudice at any point before the judgment was returned. The legislature attempted to discourage vexatious suits by limiting the plaintiff's freedom, but only by preventing an automatic voluntary dismissal without prejudice after trial or hearing commenced. (See Historical and Practice Notes, Ill.Ann.Stat., ch. 110, par. 2-1009, at 416-17 (Smith-Hurd 1983).) Any further limits on the plaintiff's common law rights should be enacted by the legislature, not declared by this court.
This court has not addressed the question of when trial begins. The matter has been considered by our appellate court, and we adopt its analysis. Cosmopolitan National Bank v. Goldberg (1959), 22 Ill.App.2d 4, 159 N.E.2d 1, arose on facts similar to those here. Plaintiff sued in forcible entry and detainer. On the trial date, both sides answered ready for trial, and the venire was brought into the courtroom but was neither interrogated nor sworn. A preliminary conference was held in the judge's chambers, during which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
C.O.A.L., Inc. v. Dana Hotel, LLC
...by the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal, but the defendants have no recourse unless they can appeal." Kahle v. John Deere Co. , 104 Ill. 2d 302, 306, 84 Ill.Dec. 650, 472 N.E.2d 787 (1984). However, with respect to plaintiffs, the supreme court held that "[t]his order cannot be appealed by t......
-
McWilliams v. Dettore
...when the jury was selected, which occurred prior to the plaintiffs' motion for voluntary dismissal. Kahle v. John Deere Co., 104 Ill.2d 302, 308, 84 Ill.Dec. 650, 472 N.E.2d 787 (1984), citing Wilhite v. Agbayani, 2 Ill.App.2d 29, 33, 118 N.E.2d 440 (1954) (trial commenced when the jurors w......
-
Lafin v. Allstate Ins. Co., 86-1411
...Ill.Dec. 707, 491 N.E.2d 1167; Dillie v. Bisby (1985), 106 Ill.2d 487, 88 Ill.Dec. 612, 478 N.E.2d 1338; Kahle v. John Deere Co. (1984), 104 Ill.2d 302, 84 Ill.Dec. 650, 472 N.E.2d 787; Whamond v. McGill, M.D. (1988), 168 Ill.App.3d 66, 118 Ill.Dec. 756, 522 N.E.2d 211; Semersky v. West (19......
-
Hudson v. City of Chicago
...N.E.2d 480; Wold v. Bull Valley Management Co., 96 Ill.2d 110, 70 Ill.Dec. 238, 449 N.E.2d 112 (1983); Kahle v. John Deere Co., 104 Ill.2d 302, 84 Ill.Dec. 650, 472 N.E.2d 787 (1984). In Flores, this court held that a dismissal for want of prosecution is not a final and appealable order und......