Meier v. Pocius
| Decision Date | 28 April 1958 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 47281 |
| Citation | 150 N.E.2d 215,17 Ill.App.2d 332 |
| Parties | William F. MEIER, Appellant, v. Anele POCIUS, a/k/a Anile Pocius, individually, and d/b/a Castle Inn, and Robert Meier, Defendants. Anele Pocius, a/k/a Anile Pocius, individually, and d/b/a Castle Inn, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Sherman Bennet Lans, Chicago, Gerald M. Chapman, Chicago, of counsel, for appellant.
McKinley & Price, Chicago, Paul E. Price, Louis Dennen, Chicago, of counsel, for appellee.
This suit was brought by William F. Meier against his brother Robert Meier and Anele Pocius, doing business as Castle Inn, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when an automobile driven by Robert Meier plunged into a culvert and injured plaintiff who was a passenger therein. The complaint charges that the accident was due to the negligence of Robert Meier, who was intoxicated at the time as a result, in whole or in part, of the sale to him of intoxicating liquor by the defendant Anele Pocius. The court sustained a motion for summary judgment in favor of defendant Pocius and dismissed the suit as to her. The order contains the provision that no just cause exists to delay the enforcement of an appeal therefrom in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Practice Act, and the appeal is taken from that order.
The basis of the order is that plaintiff made admissions which exonerated defendant Pocius from any liability under the Dramshop Act. Defendant Pocius attached to her affidavit in support of her motion for summary judgment the deposition of the plaintiff which had previously been taken in connection with this case. In that deposition plaintiff stated that he was thirty years old; that on the night of the accident, Sunday, April 25, 1955, his brother came to his home about 8:00 or 9:00 p. m.; that they went to several places of amusement and had nothing to drink until about 11:30 or 12:00 o'clock. They then went to a tavern where plaintiff had a small bottle of beer and his brother had a highball. They left that tavern and went to the tavern owned by defendant Pocius, which they reached about 12:30 a. m., Monday. Plaintiff had four or five small bottles of beer and his brother had four or five highballs. Plaintiff paid for some of the drinks and his brother paid for some. Plaintiff then testified as follows: They left there about 2:00 a. m. (Emphasis ours.)
In the counter-affidavit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. Araiza
...... (1960), 23 Ill.App.2d 492, 163 N.E.2d 220; James v. Wicker (1941), 309 Ill.App. 397, 33 N.E.2d 169. Under Meier v. Pocius (1958), 17 Ill.App.2d 332, 150 N.E.2d 215, a plaintiff who embarks on a tour of taverns and joins in the drinking, even if he did not ......
-
Walter v. Carriage House Hotels, Ltd.
.......App.2d 84, 200 N.E.2d 745; Phenicie, 23 Ill.App.2d 492, 163 N.E.2d 220) or embarking on a "tour of taverns" and joining in the drinking (e.g., Meier v. Pocius (1958), 17 Ill.App.2d 332, 150 N.E.2d 215). The Nelson court concluded that a plaintiff's active contribution to or procurement of the ......
-
Lindenmier v. City of Rockford
...... (Fountaine v. Hadlock [ (1971), 132 Ill.App.2d 343, 270 N.E.2d 222]; Burnley v. Moore [ (1963), 41 Ill.App.2d 156, 190 N.E.2d 141]; Meier v. Pocius [ (1958), 17 Ill.App.2d 332, 150 N.E.2d 215].) This rule is an expression of a judicial policy aimed at eliminating the temptation to ......
-
Walter v. Carriage House Hotels, Ltd., 5-91-0131
......Service Liquor Store, Inc. (1960), 23 Ill.App.2d[239 Ill.App.3d 715] 492, 163 N.E.2d 220, and Meier v. Pocius (1958), 17 Ill.App.2d 332, 150 N.E.2d 215, are relevant to the disposition of the case at bar. We disagree. . In ......