McNerney v. Allamuradov

Decision Date30 June 2017
Docket NumberNo. 1-15-3515.,1-15-3515.
Citation84 N.E.3d 437,2017 IL App (1st) 153515
Parties Susanna MCNERNEY, Plaintiff/Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. Muhtar ALLAMURADOV, Defendant, 303 Taxi, LLC, Grand Transportation, Inc., Defendants/Appellees and Cross-Appellants.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Daniel J. Mohan, Heather R. Adams, and Vy'Shaey M. Mitchell, of Daley Mohan Groble, P.C., of Chicago, for appellant.

John J. Meehan and Donna D. Ciancio, of Law Offices of John J. Meehan, P.C., and Mark G. Poulakidas and Michael L. Abel, of Haynes, Studnicka, Kahan & Poulakidas, LLC, both of Chicago, for appellees.

OPINION

JUSTICE REYES delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 After Susanna McNerney (McNerney) contacted 303 Taxi, L.L.C. (303) to arrange transportation, a taxicab marked with 303's logo, telephone number, and distinctive colors arrived at McNerney's residence at the designated time. The taxicab driver, Muhtar Allamuradov (Allamuradov), sexually assaulted McNerney as he drove her to the airport. McNerney filed an action in the circuit court of Cook County against (i) Allamuradov, (ii) 303, a taxicab dispatch company, and (iii) Grand Transportation, Inc. (Grand), which had leased the taxicab to Allamuradov. On appeal, McNerney challenges the grant of summary judgment in favor of 303 and Grand. She also contends that the circuit court erred in not permitting her to supplement the record with certain "newly discovered" evidence, including a license application completed by Allamuradov. In separately-filed cross-appeals, Grand and 303 contend that this Court lacks jurisdiction because the circuit court improperly considered McNerney's late-filed motion contesting the grant of summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, we find that this Court has jurisdiction, and we reverse the decision of the circuit court granting summary judgment and remand this matter for additional proceedings.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Prior to the incident involving McNerney, the defendants had executed two agreements: (1) a dispatch services agreement between Grand and 303; and shortly thereafter, (2) a taxicab lease agreement between Grand and Allamuradov. Pursuant to the dispatch services agreement, 303 provided various dispatch services to Grand, and Grand was permitted to use 303's logo, colors, and contact information on its taxicabs. Pursuant to the taxicab lease agreement, Grand leased a taxicab to Allamuradov. 303 and Allamuradov did not enter into any written agreement.

¶ 4 The taxicab lease agreement provided that Allamuradov, at his sole discretion, could utilize services provided by Grand, which included dispatch services through 303; redemption of credit card payments through 303; participation in 303's voucher program; and routine repair and maintenance services from Grand. Grand was required to provide: an operable vehicle equipped with a taxi meter; access to radio/computer dispatching service from 303 and credit card reading equipment; affiliation with 303 and license to use the "303 Taxi" name and service marks for display on the taxicab; and public liability and property damage insurance covering itself and Allamuradov in the amounts prescribed by law. Grand could terminate the agreement without advance notice under specified circumstances, including nonpayment of the lease fee or if Allamuradov's driving record became an unacceptable insurance risk. Allamuradov's responsibilities included: reporting any accident to the proper authorities and to Grand's insurer; prompt payment of parking tickets, traffic citations, and fines; purchase of gasoline and all other operating expenses; and liability for physical damage to the taxicab and equipment beyond the normal wear and tear.

¶ 5 The taxicab lease agreement provided that nothing therein created or implied the existence of an employer-employee or principal-agent relationship between Grand and Allamuradov. The agreement referred to Allamuradov as a "self-employed businessperson, free from authority and control" of Grand.

¶ 6 After her assault, McNerney initially filed a complaint against 303, Stellar Transportation, Inc. (Stellar), and Allamuradov, individually and as agent and servant of 303 and/or Stellar. McNerney then filed a nine-count amended complaint, which added Grand as a defendant, alleging assault and battery, negligence, and negligent hiring, supervision, and training. Stellar was subsequently dismissed from the action because Grand, and not Stellar, leased the taxicab to Allamuradov.

¶ 7 Grand and 303 filed answers to the amended complaint and motions for summary judgment. Grand argued, among other things, that there was no agency relationship between Grand and Allamuradov, that his alleged conduct was not within the scope of any purported agency, that Grand was not a common carrier and thus did not owe any heightened duty of care, and that federal law prohibits vicarious liability for a commercial lessor of a vehicle for the actions of its lessee. Grand further contended that there was no evidence that it negligently hired, supervised, or trained Allamuradov. The attachments to its motion for summary judgment included the deposition testimony of Sergey Rapoport (Rapoport) and McNerney.

¶ 8 Although compensated by another company, Rapoport performed work as a manager for Grand, a taxicab leasing company in operation since the beginning of 2012.1 Rapoport also worked as a driver coordinator for 303. He testified that Allamuradov was referred to Grand by another driver. Other than his driver's license, Allamuradov did not provide any other form of identification at the time he leased the taxicab. Allamuradov did not provide a social security number, and Rapoport was unaware of any alternative name or alias he may have used.2 Rapoport did not request references nor did he communicate with Allamuradov's prior employers.

¶ 9 Grand did not perform a background check on Allamuradov prior to entering into the taxicab lease agreement. Although Allamuradov made payments pursuant to the lease agreement, he was not required to provide a credit card. He paid Grand a fixed weekly fee that was not contingent upon his earnings. Grand did not issue him a 1099 and did not require him to drive the taxicab during any particular hours (or at all), nor did it require that he record or report his fares.

¶ 10 Rapoport further testified that the taxicab driven by Allamuradov was "affiliated with" 303, meaning that Grand had purchased dispatch services and licensed 303's trademarks. 303 did not lease vehicles. Although Grand did not have a relationship with dispatch service companies other than 303, individual drivers could utilize the services of other companies. If 303 was contacted by a party requesting a taxicab, it relayed the request to all taxicabs affiliated with 303 whose operators had chosen to "book into" the terminal.

¶ 11 Although Allamuradov initially denied any wrongdoing, Rapoport after learning of the incident with McNerney terminated his lease and required the return of the taxicab. In March 2014, Allamuradov met with Rapoport to inquire whether he could again lease a taxicab from Grand. Rapoport denied Allamuradov's request.

¶ 12 During his September 2014 deposition, Rapoport testified that Grand leased out between 20 to 30 taxicabs at any given time, some of which were equipped with surveillance systems which were installed by the individual drivers. According to Rapaport, Grand viewed its "customers" as the lessees of the taxicabs, not the passengers in the vehicles. Rapoport also testified that Grand did not market itself as a provider of taxi services to the general public.

¶ 13 A portion of McNerney's deposition testimony was appended to Grand's motion for summary judgment. She testified that she began using 303 in 2002, based on the recommendation of her former in-laws. Her former husband also "swore by 303." Prior to her assault, she had used 303 taxicabs exclusively in the Chicagoland area. Although she did not pay attention to the logos on the exterior of 303 taxicabs, she was aware of their white and turquoise colors.

¶ 14 On August 22, 2012, McNerney requested a taxicab for the following morning through 303's online ordering website. She subsequently called 303 to change her pick-up time. When Allamuradov arrived at McNerney's residence in Winnetka, Illinois, at 4 a.m. on August 23, 2012, she received a telephone call and a text message from 303. While traveling to the airport, Allamuradov stopped the taxicab in a deserted area of Northbrook, Illinois, and insisted that McNerney move to the front seat. Despite her objections and her attempts to thwart him, he engaged in unwanted sexual and physical contact with her. She was able to surreptitiously record portions of the assault using her mobile telephone. Allamuradov subsequently confessed and pled guilty to battery.

¶ 15 McNerney testified that she had not heard of Grand prior to the incident. She further testified that she had no "special relationship" with 303 except that its telephone number was programmed into her telephone. Although she "used to trust it," 303 never made any representations or guarantees to her. She was not aware that the taxicab drivers who utilized 303 were independent contractors.

¶ 16 Like Grand, 303 in its motion for summary judgment argued that it had no employment or agency relationship with Allamuradov and that his actions were outside the scope of any alleged agency. 303 also asserted that it did not hire Allamuradov and that its orientation for Allamuradov regarding the workings of the dispatch system did not constitute negligent training. The attachments to 303's motion included the deposition testimony of Rapoport, McNerney, and Baqthiar Khan (Khan).

¶ 17 Khan testified that he was employed by 303 as a driver coordinator. He explained that certain vehicles that utilized 303's dispatch services were operated by the owners of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Powell v. City of Chi.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 24, 2021
    ...¶ 15 Respondeat superior allows an injured party to hold a principal vicariously liable for the conduct of its agent. McNerney v. Allamuradov , 2017 IL App (1st) 153515, ¶ 67, 416 Ill.Dec. 455, 84 N.E.3d 437. For an employer to be vicariously liable under respondeat superior , the employee'......
  • Doe v. Sch. Dist. U-46
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • August 27, 2021
    ...train its employees is ... best analyzed under principles generally applicable to negligence cases." McNerney v. Allamuradov , 416 Ill.Dec. 455, 84 N.E.3d 437, 452 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). "The touchtone of the duty analysis is to ask whether the plaintiff and defendant stood in such a relatio......
  • Horton v. City of Chi.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • September 30, 2018
    ...it knew, or should have known, was unfit for the job so as to create a danger of harm to third persons."); McNerney v. Allamuradov, 84 N.E.3d 437, 450 (Ill. App. 2017) (same); Doe v. Brouillette, 906 N.E.2d 105, 115-16 (Ill. App. 2009)). Plaintiff does not identify any facts suggesting that......
  • Thompson v. Sutherland Global Servs., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • April 3, 2019
    ...not the actual exercise of control, is the principle factor in distinguishing a servant from a contractor. McNerney v. Allamuradov, 84 N.E.3d 437, 454 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). Because AT&T exerted significant control over Defendant, the Court finds that the first prong of the agency analysis i......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT