Klatt v. Commonwealth Edison Co.
Decision Date | 19 November 1965 |
Docket Number | Nos. 39236,39237,s. 39236 |
Citation | 211 N.E.2d 720,33 Ill.2d 481 |
Parties | Bonnie KLATT, Appellee, v. COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY et al., Appellants. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Fearer & Nye, Oregon, and Hall, Meyer, Fisher, Van Deusen, Holmberg & Snook, Waukegan (Gerald W. Fearer, Oregon, and Lloyd A. Van Deusen, Waukegan, of counsel) for appellant Commonwealth Edison Company.
O'Brien, Burnell, Puckett & Barnett, Aurora (W. C. O'Brien and Wilson D. Burnell, Aurora, of counsel), for appellant Margaret V. Klatt.
Burrell & Holtan, Freeport, and Snyder, Clarke, Dalziel, Holmquist & Johnson, Waukegan (William A. Holmquist, Waukegan, of counsel), for appellee.
These are appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, Second District, which, in a suit for personal injuries (1) affirmed the orders of the circuit court of Lake County denying defendants' post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, (2) reversed the trial court's order granting defendants a new trial, and (3) remanded the cause with directions to reinstate the jury verdict awarding $85,000 in damages to the plaintiff. Both defendants challenge the appellate court's ruling concerning the motion for new trial, the affirmance of the trial court's denial of defendants' post-trial motions, and the appellate court's ruling concerning a witness who testified at the trial under section 60 of the Civil Practice Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1963, chap. 110, par. 60). Defendant Margaret V. Klatt, administratrix of the estate of Herman B. Klatt, deceased, also appeals from the appellate court's denial of her defense under the Statute of Limitations to a third-party complaint filed against her by defendant Commonwealth Edison.
Important questions being presented, we granted both defendants' petitions for leave to appeal.
For convenience, we set forth the appellate court's substantially correct and detailed history of the litigation and summary of the testimony adduced at the trial (55 Ill.App.2d 120, 204 N.E.2d 319):
'On August 23, 1961, plaintiff Bonnie Klatt commenced an action against Commonwealth Edison Company, a corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'defendant Edison', and Margaret V. Klatt, administrator of the estate of Herbert B. Klatt, deceased, hereinafter referred to as 'defendant administrator', to recover damages for personal injuries received in an automobile collision. In her complaint she alleged that at the time of the collision she was a guest passenger in an automobile being driven by Herbert B. Klatt, deceased, her father, who at the time was an agent or servant of defendant Edison. Separate answers were filed by each defendant. The answer of defendant Edison denied that the deceased was its agent at the time of the collision and denied that he was operating the automobile within the course of his employment. In addition defendant Edison filed a third party complaint alleging in substance that the liability if any, of defendant Edison was predicated upon the doctrine of respondeat superior so that if defendant Edison is liable to plaintiff the defendant administrator is liable to defendant Edison. Issues being joined on these pleadings, the cause was submitted to a jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against both defendants and fixed the damages at '85,000.00. Thereupon the jury also rendered a verdict on the third party complaint as follows:
'If you find in favor of the defendant, Commonwealth Edison Company, on the complaint of the plaintiff, Bonnie Klatt, you will have no occasion to use this form of verdict; if you find against the defendant, Commonwealth Edison Company on the complaint of the plaintiff, Bonnie Klatt, the Court directs that you will then return the following verdict inserting in the blank space provided the same amount that you have found against Commonwealth Edison Company in favor of Bonnie Klatt if you have so found.'
'We the jury find in favor of the third party plaintiff, Commonwealth Edison Company, and against the third party defendant, Margaret V. Klatt, administrator of the estate of Herbert B. Klatt, deceased, and assess the damages of the third party plaintiff, Commonwealth Edison Company, in the amount of $85.000.00.'
Judgment was entered upon both of these verdicts. Separate post trial motions were filed by each defendant for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. The trial court heard arguments on the motions and filed a rather extensive opinion covering the major points raised by the defendants on their post trial motions. The trial court denied both post trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict but granted both motions for a new trial. The sole ground upon which the motions for new trial were granted, as shown by the court's opinion, was that the trial judge was of the opinion that he had committed error with respect to testimony of one of the witnesses. Upon petition to this court we granted leave to appeal from the order granting a new trial. Thereupon defendant Edison filed a cross appeal appealing from the order granting a new trial on its third party complaint and also appealing from the order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Defendant administrator also filed a cross appeal, appealing from the order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Defendants both contend that, as a matter of law, there is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Skelton v. Chicago Transit Authority
...misconduct is that which is committed with an intentional or reckless disregard for the safety of others. (Klatt v. Commonwealth Edison Co. (1965), 33 Ill.2d 481, 211 N.E.2d 720; Giers, 68 Ill.App.3d at 539, 24 Ill.Dec. at 881, 386 N.E.2d at 85.) Whether particular conduct can be characteri......
-
Baumrucker v. Express Cab Dispatch, Inc.
...misconduct as a course of action showing actual intent or reckless disregard for the safety of others. Klatt v. Commonwealth Edison Co. , 33 Ill. 2d 481, 488, 211 N.E.2d 720 (1965). Whether particular conduct can be characterized as willful and wanton depends on each case's facts and ordina......
-
Lynch v. Board of Ed. of Collinsville Community Unit Dist. No. 10
...danger through recklessness, or carelessness when it could have been discovered by ordinary care.' " (Klatt v. Commonwealth Edison Co. (1965), 33 Ill.2d 481, 488, 211 N.E.2d 720, 724, quoting Hering v. Hilton (1958), 12 Ill.2d 559, 562, 147 N.E.2d 311, and Schneiderman v. Interstate Transit......
-
Miller v. General Motors Corp.
...447; O'Brien v. Township High School District 214 (1980), 83 Ill.2d 462, 47 Ill.Dec. 702, 415 N.E.2d 1015; Klatt v. Commonwealth Edison Co. (1965), 33 Ill.2d 481, 211 N.E.2d 720; Templar v. DecaturPublic School District No. 61 (1989), 182 Ill.App.3d 507, 131 Ill.Dec. 7, 538 N.E.2d 195; Hadl......