Neff v. Davenport Packing Co.
Decision Date | 26 February 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 70--51,70--51 |
Citation | 268 N.E.2d 574,131 Ill.App.2d 791 |
Parties | Robert J. NEFF, Administrator of estate of Janice Ray Neff, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVENPORT PACKING COMPANY, Inc., and Michael L. Harris, Defendants-Appellants. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Bozeman, Neighbour, Patton & Noe, Moline, for defendants-appellants.
Eagle & Eagle, Rock Island, John S. Perry, Moline, for plaintiff-appellee.
Plaintiff, Robert Neff, as administrator of the estate of his deceased wife Janice Neff, brought this action in the Circuit Court of Rock Island County seeking to recover damages for wrongful death occasioned by Michael Harris and Davenport Packing Company, defendants. The first count of the complaint was based on the alleged negligence of Harris in the operation of a truck belonging to Davenport Packing, the count further alleging that Harris was an employee of Davenport at the time and accordingly Davenport was liable as principal. Davenport filed a general denial to the count and thereafter plaintiff added count two to the complaint which in addition to alleging the negligence of Harris also alleged that Davenport as owner of the truck negligently entrusted the vehicle to a person named Harris, knowing that such driver was reckless, incompetent and had been involved in other violations of the vehicle laws. The theory of count two is commonly designated as negligent entrustment. Pursuant to leave granted, Davenport amended its answer to count one by admitting that Harris was its agent and employee operating within the scope of his employment at the time of the event and admitting that if Harris were liable Davenport would also be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. At the same time Davenport moved to dismiss count two of the complaint on the theory that such count was irrelevant in view of defendant Davenport's admission of agency regarding count one. The trial court denied defendant's motion to dismiss count two but certified that no just reason for delaying appeal existed and we thereafter granted Davenport's petition for leave to appeal.
The only issue presented on this appeal is whether a party not the driver of an automobile, who admits to his liability under respondeat superior may also be found liable under the theory of negligent entrustment. Both parties concede this issue is one of first impression in Illinois and consequently we have been referred to cases from other jurisdictions.
It is appellee's initial contention in support of the action of the trial court that Sec. 43(2), Chap. 110, (Civil Practice Act), Ill.Rev.Stat. 1969, authorizes alternative pleadings even where counts may be contradictory or inconsistent. We have no quarrel with the liberal purpose of alternative pleadings but since the purpose of pleadings is to determine the issues to be tried the propriety of different counts must be considered in the light of the issues admitted or denied. If the defendant Davenport had denied its liability and responsibility for Harris's conduct we would have no difficulty in agreeing with plaintiff that issues existed requiring trial on each count. See Breeding v. Massey, 8 Cir., 378 F.2d 171.
Where as in the case at bar, the link between the tort feasor and some other party is admitted, as by the principal in the case at bar, there appears to be some division of opinion concerning the propriety of proceeding on liability when based on negligent entrustment. The majority view and the view with which we agree seems to be that issues relating to negligent entrustment...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Neuhengen v. Global Experience Specialists, Inc.
...count was not eliminated by admitting respondeat superior and negligence.¶ 81 Defendants argue that under Neff v. Davenport Packing Co. , 131 Ill. App. 2d 791, 268 N.E.2d 574 (1971), and its progeny, the trial court was required to dismiss all counts directed at GES's actions once it had ad......
-
McQueen v. Green
...Specialists, Inc. , 2018 IL App (1st) 160322, ¶ 84, 424 Ill.Dec. 718, 109 N.E.3d 832 (citing Neff v. Davenport Packing Co. , 131 Ill. App. 2d 791, 792-93, 268 N.E.2d 574 (1971) ). This principle applies even though claims such as negligent hiring and retention are based on the employer's ne......
-
Ledesma by Ledesma v. Cannonball, Inc.
...was acting within the scope of his employment, the negligent entrustment count cannot stand. The case of Neff v. Davenport Packing Co. (1971), 131 Ill.App.2d 791, 268 N.E.2d 574, cited by both parties, is applicable and persuasive here. There, the plaintiff was in an accident with an employ......
-
MV Transp., Inc. v. Allgeier, 2012–SC–000462–DG.
...567 F.Supp. 1084, 1086 (N.D.Miss.1983); Willis v. Hill, 116 Ga.App. 848, 159 S.E.2d 145, 153–54 (1967); 9Neff v. Davenport Packing Co., 131 Ill.App.2d 791, 268 N.E.2d 574, 575 (1971); and McHaffie By and Through McHaffie v. Bunch, 891 S.W.2d 822, 826 (Mo.1995) (collecting cases applying the......