Ray v. Cock Robin, Inc., s. 45816 and 45834
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
| Citation | 57 Ill.2d 19,310 N.E.2d 9 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 45816 and 45834,s. 45816 and 45834 |
| Parties | Vernon RAY, Admr., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants and Appellees, v. COCK ROBIN, INC., et al., Defendants. COCK ROBIN, INC., Appellant, v. Edward ZAWACKI, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 29 March 1974 |
Page 9
v.
COCK ROBIN, INC., et al., Defendants.
COCK ROBIN, INC., Appellant,
v.
Edward ZAWACKI, Appellee.
[57 Ill.2d 20]
Page 10
Howard C. Sorensen, and Pretzel, Stouffer, Nolan & Rooney, Chicago (Joseph B. Lederleitner, Chicago, of counsel), for appellant Cock Robin, Inc.Fred Lambruschi, Chicago (Herbert P. Veldenz, Chicago, of counsel), for appellants.
Hubbard, Hubbard, O'Brien & Hall, Chicago (Alvin G. Hubbard and Frederick W. Temple, Chicago, of counsel), for appellee Edward Zawacki.
KLUCZYNSKI, Justice:
Plaintiffs, Vernon Ray, as administrator of the estate of his deceased daughter, Kimberly Ray, and several parents, as next friends of their minor children, filed a negligence action in the circuit court of Du Page County seeking damages against defendants, Edwin Cholewa, Edward Zawacki, d/b/a North Grace Super Sinclair Service, and Cock Robin, Inc. At the close of the evidence the trial court directed a verdict against Cholewa as to liability and submitted the issue of damages to the jury, which returned verdicts against Cholewa totalling $99,400. Verdicts in favor of Zawacki and Cock Robin as to their liability were also returned and judgment was entered. On appeal to the Appellate Court, Second District, the justices of that court agreed that the judgment entered on behalf of Cock Robin must be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial because relevant evidence was excluded [57 Ill.2d 21] from the jury's consideration. The appellate court majority further held that the judgment entered on behalf of Zawacki and against Cholewa was proper. (Ray v. Cock Robin, Inc., 10 Ill.App.3d 276, 293 N.E.2d 483.) Petitions for leave to appeal by plaintiffs and Cock Robin were both granted and the causes consolidated for opinion and decision.
The facts giving rise to this case are extensively reported by the appellate court and none of the parties have challenged their sufficiency. For purposes of this appeal we need only briefly reiterate certain facts.
Cock Robin owned a drive-in ice-cream establishment located on the southwest corner of River Road and Cherry Street in River Grove. The structure on the premises occupied by Cock Robin did not encompass
Page 11
the entire area. The building was located near the rear of the property. In front of the stand, in an open area, were several picnic tables and a bicycle rack for use by patrons. No curbing or other obstruction separated Cherry Street from the picnic area.On the day of the accident Cholewa was southbound on River Road in an automobile that had been recently serviced by Zawacki. As he approached Cherry Street, he applied his brakes because of congested traffic ahead. The brakes failed and he attempted a turn his car onto Cherry Street but was unable to negotiate the turn because, as Cholewa testified, his powersteering mechanism also failed. As a result, his vehicle entered the picnic area of the ice-cream stand, hit the bicycle rack, a picnic table and came to a stop in the adjacent lot. Several children represented in this action were sitting at the table and were injured, one fatally.
During the course of the trial plaintiffs were denied introduction of certain testimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson by Tatum v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 83-370
...Co. (1967), 84 Ill.App.2d 344, 362, 228 N.E.2d 470; Ray v. Cock Robin, Inc. (1973), 10 Ill.App.3d 276, 285, 293 N.E.2d 483, aff'd (1974), 57 Ill.2d 19, 310 N.E.2d 9; Fugate v. Sears, Roebuck and Company (1973), 12 Ill.App.3d 656, 669, 299 N.E.2d 108; Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. 435(1......
-
Millette v. Radosta, 78-1845
...768, 374 N.E.2d 203; Davis v. Marathon Oil Co. (1976), 64 Ill.2d 380, 1 Ill.Dec. 93, 356 N.E.2d 93; Ray v. Cock Robin, Inc. (1974), 57 Ill.2d 19, 310 N.E.2d 9.) But here the jury was entitled to find that Radosta could and indeed should have foreseen that he might have difficulty steering t......
-
Hylin v. U.S., 81-2931
...combination with it, causes the injury. Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp., 31 Ill.2d 69, 88, 199 N.E.2d 769 (1964); Ray v. Cock Robin, Inc., 57 Ill.2d 19, 23, 310 N.E.2d 9 (1974); Watson v. Chicago Transit Authority, 12 Ill.App.3d 684, 692, 299 N.E.2d 58 (1st Dist.1973); I.P.I.2d, § 15.01 (19......
-
Thompson v. Gordon, 2-07-0667.
...in whole or in part to the plaintiff's injury, so long as it was one of the proximate causes of the injury.'" Ray v. Cock Robin, Inc., 57 Ill.2d 19, 23, 310 N.E.2d 9 (1974), quoting Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp., 31 Ill.2d 69, 88, 199 N.E.2d 769 (1964). The key to determining whether an i......
-
Hylin v. U.S., 81-2931
......Cock Robin, Inc., 57 Ill.2d 15, 23, 309 N.E.2d 565 (1974); ......
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Bell
...Inc., 407 A.2d at 341, 343 ; Zippy Properties, Inc., 667 S.W.2d at 313, 315 ; Thompson, 341 So.2d at 838–839 ; Ray v. Cock Robin, Inc., 57 Ill.2d 19, 310 N.E.2d 9, 12 (1974) ; Denisewich, 198 A.2d at 147–148 ). The second category consists of cases where “defendants had knowledge of prior s......
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Bell, Case No. 12–2456–DDC–KGG.
...Inc., 407 A.2d at 341, 343; Zippy Properties, Inc., 667 S.W.2d at 313, 315; Thompson, 341 So.2d at 838–839; Ray v. Cock Robin, Inc., 57 Ill.2d 19, 310 N.E.2d 9, 12 (1974); Denisewich, 198 A.2d at 147–148). The second category consists of cases where “defendants had knowledge of prior simila......
-
Marshall v. Burger King Corp.
...patrons. 355 Ill.App.3d at 689, 291 Ill.Dec. 805, 824 N.E.2d 661. Relying on two factually analogous cases, Ray v. Cock Robin, Inc., 57 Ill.2d 19, 310 N.E.2d 9 (1974), and Marquardt v. Cernocky, 18 Ill.App.2d 135, 151 N.E.2d 109 (1958), the majority concluded that, based on the allegations ......