McClellan v. Chicago Transit Authority
| Decision Date | 14 November 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 61151,61151 |
| Citation | 34 Ill.App.3d 151,340 N.E.2d 61 |
| Parties | Emma Jean Mc,CLELLAN and Thelma Orr, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a Municipal Corporation, et al., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Alan Kawitt, Chicago, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Baker & McKenzie, Chicago (Francis D. Morrissey and Michael K. Murtaugh, Chicago, of counsel), for defendant-appellee, Flxible Co.
Emma Jean McClellan and Thelma Orr (hereinafter plaintiffs) appeal from a summary judgment in favor of defendant, Flxible Company.
On June 8, 1972, plaintiffs filed suit against the Chicago Transit Authority (hereinafter CTA) claiming that they were injured as a result of their falling while passengers on a CTA bus. Recovery was sought based upon a theory of negligence. That action is still pending in the trial court. On April 12, 1973, plaintiffs amended their complaint and joined Flxible Company. They claimed that design defects in the brakes and handrails were direct and proximate cause of their injuries, and the Flxible is to be held liable for all injuries.
Flxible filed an answer denying the allegations; it also filed interrogatories and took the discovery depositions of both plaintiffs. Flxible then filed a motion for summary judgment under Section 57 of the Civil Practice Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 110, par. 57) stating that no genuine issue as to a material fact existed and that Flxible was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
In support of the motion Flxible stated that through discovery it was found that plaintiffs would be the only witnesses at trial, and that their testimony would be insufficient to prove any design defect. Their deposition testimony in pertinent part was that on August 31, 1971, they boarded a new, air conditioned CTA bus. Unable to find seats, each assumed a standing position near the center of the bus. They held onto the vertical handrails which run from the floor to the ceiling of the bus. As the bus proceeded into an intersection it stopped suddenly, and plaintiffs lost their balance. They fell and struck the metal handrails that run horizontally along the back of the standard two occupant bus seat.
Plaintiffs filed an answer admitting that no other witnesses would be called, but that expert testimony would not be necessary and that the testimony of plaintiffs was sufficient to establish a triable issue of fact. After a hearing, summary judgment
was entered for Flxible, and plaintiffs appeal.
OPINIONPlaintiffs contend that their testimony alone would be sufficient to establish by circumstantial evidence that the brakes and handrails were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. Piper Aircraft Corp.
...(Ill. law); see also Baker v. Chrysler Corporation, 55 Cal.App.3d 710, 127 Cal.Rptr. 745, 749 (1976); McClellan v. Chicago Transit Authority, 34 Ill.App.3d 151, 340 N.E.2d 61, 63 (1975). But see 141 South Main, Inc. v. Magic Fingers, Inc., 49 Ill.App.3d 724, 7 Ill.Dec. 444, 364 N.E.2d 605, ......
-
Lancaster v. Jeffrey Galion, Inc.
...of (E. g., that it could not have been operated safely.) Defendants rely for this requirement on McClellan v. Chicago Transit Authority (1975), 34 Ill.App.3d 151, 340 N.E.2d 61. Although it is true that the plaintiff did not establish this "requirement" it does not appear to us to be an ess......
-
Rossell v. Volkswagen of America, 1
...case involving the alleged defective design of the braking system and interior design of a commercial bus. McClellan v. Chicago Transit Auth., 34 Ill.App.3d 151, 340 N.E.2d 61 (1975). The feasibility of an elevator toe guard was found to be a technical matter and not within the jury's exper......
-
141 South Main, Inc. v. Magic Fingers, Inc.
...possibility. (Sutkowski v. Universal Marion Corp. (1972), 5 Ill.App.3d 313, 281 N.E.2d 749; McClellan v. Chicago Transit Authority (1975), 34 Ill.App.3d 151, 340 N.E.2d 61.) Magic argues that neither (1) nor (3) were proved. They concede, however, that the expert testified that alternative ......