Lembeck v. Brady, Gen. No. 66--21
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Writing for the Court | STOUDER; CORYN, P.J., and ALLOY |
Citation | 78 Ill.App.2d 146,222 N.E.2d 704 |
Parties | Darlene LEMBECK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juanita Hundemer BRADY, d/b/a Nita's Place, Defendant-Appellant. |
Docket Number | Gen. No. 66--21 |
Decision Date | 29 December 1966 |
Page 704
v.
Juanita Hundemer BRADY, d/b/a Nita's Place, Defendant-Appellant.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 24, 1967.
[78 Ill.App.2d 147]
Page 705
Hubbard, Hubbard, O'Brien & Hall, Chicago, Kavanagh, Scully, Sudow & White, Peoria, for appellant.Knoblock & Ott, Peoria, for appellee.
STOUDER, Justice.
This is an appeal from a judgment for $82,500.00 entered by the Circuit Court of Peoria County on a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee, Darene Lembeck, on her claim for personal injuries against Juanita Hundemer Brady, d/b/a Nita's Place, Defendant-Appellant.
[78 Ill.App.2d 148] On Saturday afternoon, July 13, 1963 at about 3:30 P.M. Plaintiff met Joseph Klepfer a friend. The latter invited Plaintiff to have a drink and for that purpose they went to Nita's Place, a tavern operated by Defendant. Defendant was tending bar at the time of the incident. Plaintiff and her companion seated themselves at the bar, Plaintiff ordering beer. During the absence of her companion, Klepfer, from the bar, Robert Petzing, who was seated several stools away, passed a note to Plaintiff. Shortly after Plaintiff had commenced her second beer she left the bar to go to the ladies' room, her companion testifying that she had asked Defendant for directions although the Defendant did not recall such request. To get to the ladies' rest room Plaintiff went through an archway with double louvered doors into a room where a stairwell was located. The room was about 14 feet by 15 feet and contained a pool table, two lounges, two tables for customers and several chairs. The ladies' rest room was partitioned off to the rear or north. The stairhead was at the east side of the room toward the rear. On the partition for the entrance to the ladies' room toward the rear was a sign saying 'ladies' with direction arrows pointing in two different directions and on the lattice work over the west, waist-high wall of the stairwell, was a sign 'Watch your step--Stairway'. There were lights in the ladies' room, a bare, 100 watt bulb in the ceiling over the areaway in front of the stairhead, a 100 watt bulb in the conical-flared shade over the pool table, a fluorescent tube running north and south up against the ceiling and a light in the basement that would light up the bottom of the stairway. There were no outside windows in the room. Shortly after Plaintiff had left the bar, the Defendant heard a peculiar sound coming from the direction of the ladies' rest room and going to the top of the stairs discovered Plaintiff lying at the bottom of the stairs.
[78 Ill.App.2d 149] Defendant testified that when she opened her establishment at about 2 P.M. she had turned on the lights over the pool table and the lights at the top and bottom of the stairway the same being operated on the same switch. Defendant testified that these lights were on at the time she discovered Plaintiff. Witnesses Klepfer, Petzing and a deputy sheriff, who arrived somewhat later, testified that the room was dark although they had no difficulty going through the room and that there was a light on at the bottom of the stairs. Plaintiff testified that she had not previously been in Defendant's establishment and that she had no memory of anything that occurred after she left the bar.
Three physicians testified to Plaintiff's injuries. She sustained a broken collar bone and skull fracture causing aphasia and loss of sense of taste and smell. Since the incident she has had convulsions or seizures resulting in dizziness, headaches, unconsciousness and loss of speech which...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jarmon v. Jinks, No. 86-3292
...complain when he interjects an argument into the proceedings which invites rebuttal from opposing counsel. Lembeck v. Brady (1966), 78 Ill.App.2d 146, 152, 222 N.E.2d 704. During defense counsel's closing argument, he attacked Dr. Belga's testimony, suggesting that his conclusions were not ......
-
Lewandowski v. Bakey, No. 74--134
...in the proceedings and to which he invited rebuttal. See Crutchfield v. Meyer, supra at page 214, 111 N.E.2d 142; Lembeck v. Brady, 78 Ill.App.2d 146, 152, 122 N.E.2d 704 Plaintiff also complains of comments made by the defense counsel in closing which he claims reflected upon the fact that......
-
Steichman v. Hurst, Gen. No. 70--258
...a mistrial. There was no error, as Dr. Hill's absence was raised by defendants inviting plaintiff's rebuttal (see Lembeck v. Brady, 78 Ill.App.2d 146, 152, 222 N.E.2d 704 (1966), and the response was not so intemperate as to deprive defendants of a fair trial and require declaration of a Fi......
-
Department of Public Works and Bldgs. v. Rogers, Gen. No. 66--4
...must be reversed and that upon a new trial of the matter, the trial judge be required to admit the ordinance in question into evidence. [78 Ill.App.2d 146] For the reasons stated the judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial in conformity with the views......
-
Jarmon v. Jinks, No. 86-3292
...complain when he interjects an argument into the proceedings which invites rebuttal from opposing counsel. Lembeck v. Brady (1966), 78 Ill.App.2d 146, 152, 222 N.E.2d 704. During defense counsel's closing argument, he attacked Dr. Belga's testimony, suggesting that his conclusions were not ......
-
Lewandowski v. Bakey, No. 74--134
...in the proceedings and to which he invited rebuttal. See Crutchfield v. Meyer, supra at page 214, 111 N.E.2d 142; Lembeck v. Brady, 78 Ill.App.2d 146, 152, 122 N.E.2d 704 Plaintiff also complains of comments made by the defense counsel in closing which he claims reflected upon the fact that......
-
Steichman v. Hurst, Gen. No. 70--258
...a mistrial. There was no error, as Dr. Hill's absence was raised by defendants inviting plaintiff's rebuttal (see Lembeck v. Brady, 78 Ill.App.2d 146, 152, 222 N.E.2d 704 (1966), and the response was not so intemperate as to deprive defendants of a fair trial and require declaration of a Fi......
-
Department of Public Works and Bldgs. v. Rogers, Gen. No. 66--4
...must be reversed and that upon a new trial of the matter, the trial judge be required to admit the ordinance in question into evidence. [78 Ill.App.2d 146] For the reasons stated the judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial in conformity with the views......