Mims v. New York Life Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 03 June 1971 |
Docket Number | Gen. No. 52807 |
Citation | 133 Ill.App.2d 283,273 N.E.2d 186 |
Parties | Thomas S. MIMS and Marjorie J. Mims, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Ettelson O'Hagan, Ehrlich & Frankel, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.
Evins, Pincham, Fowlkes & Strayhorn, Chicago, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Plaintiffs, Marjorie and Thomas Mims, brought this action against their landlord, New York Life Insurance Company, for damages sustained when a certain fur coat and cash were taken from the premises leased by plaintiffs. After a trial without a jury, the court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs. Defendant appeals, contending primarily that there was insufficient evidence adduced at trial to support the judgment. It also argues that the complaint failed to state a cause of action.
Plaintiffs, husband and wife, were tenants in a large apartment building owned by defendant, and were about to vacate their apartment at the termination of the lease term. Defendant's employees customarily inspected the apartment of each vacating tenant in order to determine whether the interior of the apartment had been damaged. Defendant through its supervisory personnel directed its head maintenance man to conduct such an inspection of plaintiffs' apartment. While susually defendant notified its tenants of such inspections so that the tenant would be present, plaintiffs were not notified of the inspection in question.
Mrs. Mims testified that on the date of the occurrence she left her apartment about noon in order to do some errands. Before she left, she noted that her fur coat and money were in the closet. As she left the apartment she tested the door to make sure that it was locked. When she returned at about 1:30 p.m. she noticed that the door to their apartment was open and that one of defendant's employees was in the apartment. The employee informed her that he was making an inspection of the apartment. After the employee left, Mrs. Mims found that her coat was missing and that the money was gone. She immediately notified the police.
Defendant's employee testified that he had been in the Mims apartment for about ten minutes before Mrs. Mims returned. He had knocked on the apartment door, and when no one answered, he let himself in with the master key. He left the door open while he proceeded to inspect the entire apartment.
Defendant maintains that the court incorrectly entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs becuase they failed to prove that any negligent act of defendant was the proximate cause of the loss which occurred, and also that the loss could not have been forseen by defendant.
Liability is imposed when there is a loss suffered by the plaintiff, and said loss is a foreseeable and proximate result of a failure to perform a duty imposed by law upon the defendant. McClure v. Hoopeston Gas & Electric Co., 303 Ill. 89, 135 N.E. 43 (1922); Edwards v. Ely, 317 Ill.App. 599, 47 N.E.2d 344 (1943). The law imposes a duty to exercise ordinary care to guard against injury which may naturally flow as a reasonably probable and foreseeable consequence of one's act, and the law is presumed to furnish a remedy for the redress of every wrong. Kahn v. James Burton Co., 5 Ill.2d 614, 126 N.E.2d 836 (1955).
That plaintiff suffered a loss is not questioned. The trier of facts determined that the act of defendant's employee in leaving the door to the apartment unlocked, open and unguarded while he made an inspection of the premises during plaintiffs' absence constituted a failure on the part of defendant to conform its conduct to the standard of duty imposed by law. We believe that determination to have been a permissible and proper finding. 'Questions of breach of duty and proximate cause * * * are usually questions of fact.' Lorang v. Heinz, 108 Ill.App.2d 451, 454, 248 N.E.2d 785, 786--787 (1969). Accord: Phillabaum v. Lake Erie and Western R. Co., 315 Ill. 131, 145 N.E. 806 (1924). We find that these were...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mulloy v. US
...a security system, or by placing that person in a position where he could commit an offense. Mims v. New York Life Insurance Co., 133 Ill.App.2d 283, 273 N.E.2d 186, 187 (1971) (landlord liable when it left tenant's apartment door unlocked, permitting theft to take place); Malorney v. B & L......
-
Rowe v. State Bank of Lombard
...121, 412 N.E.2d 472; Duncavage v. Allen (1986), 147 Ill.App.3d 88, 97, 100 Ill.Dec. 455, 497 N.E.2d 433; Mims v. New York Life Insurance Co. (1971), 133 Ill.App.2d 283, 273 N.E.2d 186; Stribling v. Chicago Housing Authority (1975), 34 Ill.App.3d 551, 340 N.E.2d For example, in Mims, the pla......
-
Mulloy v. US
...conduct by the defendant which facilitates the commission of wrongful conduct by a third person. Mims v. New York Life Insurance Co., 133 Ill.App.2d 283, 273 N.E.2d 186 (1971) (landlord's agent left door unlocked and ajar, allowing entry by thief). To the extent the United States facilitate......
-
Cross v. Chicago Housing Authority
...Relying on Stribling v. Chicago Housing Authority (1st Dist. 1975), 34 Ill.App.3d 551, 340 N.E.2d 47; Mims v. New York Life Ins. Co. (1st Dist. 1971), 133 Ill.App.2d 283, 273 N.E.2d 186; Johnston v. Harris (1972), 387 Mich. 569, 198 N.W.2d 409; and the aforementioned sections of the Restate......