Lowrey v. Malkowski
Decision Date | 29 September 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 35716,35716 |
Citation | 170 N.E.2d 147,20 Ill.2d 280 |
Parties | Beatrice LOWREY et al., Appellants, v. Edward MALKOWSKI et al., Appellees. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Irving Eisenberg, Chicago (Paul I. Baikoff, Chicago, of counsel), for appellants.
Brody & Gore, Duffy & Connell, McKinley & Price, and Heineke, Conklin & Schrader, Chicago, for appellees.
This case involves a construction of the Liquor Control Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1957, chap. 43, par. 135) and the limitations contained therein in relation to alleged loss of support caused by habitual drunkenness.
Plaintiff Beatrice Lowrey brought suit for herself and on behalf of two minor children against the defendant dramshops. The complaint was filed in the circuit court of Cook County on April 3, 1958. It alleged that the plaintiff Beatrice Lowrey obtained a divorce from Edward Janowiak, Jr., hereinafter called husband, on November 10, 1954, on the ground of habitual drunkenness. The complaint further alleged as follows:
The several defendants filed separate motions to dismiss, all setting forth in substance that the complaint did not state a cause of action under the Liquor Control Act, and that the complaint was barred by the limitation provision of the act. Upon hearing the trial court dismissed the complaint and thereafter denied plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint. The Appellate Court for the First District affirmed and we grant leave to appeal.
Plaintiffs contend that their complaint states a cause of action for loss of support and is not barred by the limitation provision of the Liquor Control Act. Defendants insist that the complaint does not state a cause of action, in that it does not allege injury or death to the provider of support, and in any event suit was not commenced within one year after the cause of action accrued.
The applicable provisions of the Liquor Control Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1957, chap. 43, par. 135), are as follows:
We turn first to the issue of the one-year limitation on the right to sue, which the Appellate Court regarded as dispositive of this case. The one-year proviso contained in the act is a special limitation upon a statutory cause of action, and as such is distinguishable from the general statutes of limitation which applied prior to the 1955 amendment to the act. Desiron v. Peloza, 308 Ill.App. 582, 32 N.E.2d 316; Ill.Rev.Stat.1957, chap. 83, par. 15.
A similar limitation in the Injuries Act has been repeatedly held to be a condition precedent to the right of recovery, which must be observed in all events. Wilson v. Tromly, 404 Ill. 307, 89 N.E.2d 22; Fitzpatrick v. Pitcairn, 371 Ill. 203, 20 N.E.2d 280; Hartray v. Chicago Railways Co., 290 Ill. 85, 124 N.E. 849. In addition to these persuasive authorities, we held that the legislature intended to apply the dramshop limitation retroactively to prevent the evil of prolonged liability of dramshop owners who rarely have an actual knowledge of the events upon which their liability is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilbon v. D. F. Bast Co., Inc.
...ch. 122, pars. 823, 824) were not binding on minor plaintiffs. Defendants argue that the decision in Lowrey v. Malkowski (1960), 20 Ill.2d 280, 170 N.E.2d 147, leaves no doubt that the two-year limitations period applies to the claims of these minors. Lowrey involved the limitations provisi......
-
Belleville Toyota v. Toyota Motor Sales
...180/2 (West 2000). This court has construed the provisions in these statutes as elements of the plaintiff's case. Lowrey v. Malkowski, 20 Ill.2d 280, 170 N.E.2d 147 (1960); Wilson v. Tromly, 404 Ill. 307, 89 N.E.2d 22 (1949). I believe that the same result should obtain here. In addition, s......
-
Loftus v. Mingo
...Under such circumstances the reviewing court is powerless to review the trial court's exercise of discretion. Lowrey v. Malkowski (1960), 20 Ill.2d 280, 170 N.E.2d 147, cert. denied (1961), 365 U.S. 879, 81 S.Ct. 1029, 6 L.Ed.2d In the case at bar, plaintiff did not tender a proposed fourth......
-
Demchuk v. Duplancich
...in the Dramshop Act is a special limitation upon a statutory cause of action which is applicable to minors. (Lowrey v. Malkowski (1960), 20 Ill.2d 280, 170 N.E.2d 147, cert. denied (1961), 365 U.S. 879, 6 L.Ed.2d 191, 81 S.Ct. 1029.) Prior to Lowrey, the appellate courts of this State had c......