Rhodes v. Uniroyal, Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 November 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-4,81-4 |
| Citation | 56 Ill.Dec. 834,101 Ill.App.3d 328,427 N.E.2d 1380 |
| Parties | , 56 Ill.Dec. 834 Dorothy RHODES, Administrator of the Estate of Harry Rhodes, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIROYAL, INC., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Roger D. Rickmon, Murphy, Timm, Lennon, Spesia & Ayers, Joliet, for plaintiff-appellant.
Michael Gahan, Thomas, Wallace, Feehan & Baron, Ltd., Joliet, for defendant-appellee.
Plaintiff, Harry Rhodes, later amended to Dorothy Rhodes as administrator of the estate of Harry Rhodes, deceased, filed a complaint against the defendant, Uniroyal, Inc., seeking access to property controlled by the defendant in order to investigate the nature of an injury suffered by Harry Rhodes during his employment by the defendant. In addition, plaintiff requested attorneys fees and punitive damages. Access to the property was allowed pursuant to an agreement between the parties. Upon trial of the issues of recovery of attorneys fees and punitive damages, the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $15,000 in favor of plaintiff. Thereafter, on defendant's post trial motion, the trial court entered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the defendant.
Harry Rhodes, plaintiff's decedent, an employee of the defendant, was injured at defendant's Will County plant facility on August 21, 1973. His injuries consisted primarily of extensive acid burns to his face and hands.
After his injury, Harry Rhodes and his legal counsel requested permission of the defendant to enter the plant facility where he had been employed in order to examine the instrumentality of his injury and to ascertain whether any third party actions were viable. At this time defendant determined that such investigation was against corporate policy and that Harry Rhodes and his representatives did not have a "need to know". This decision was made pursuant to the terms of defendant's established visitation procedures as formulated in conjunction with the United States Army. Defendant's plant facility is owned by the United States Government, the defendant being a contractor given responsibility for the security of that facility. Accordingly, the defendant refused all requests made on behalf of Harry Rhodes to enter the plant facility.
On June 7, 1974 Harry Rhodes filed a complaint against the defendant alleging that defendant, notwithstanding the plaintiff's requests to have his representatives enter and inspect the defendant's plant facility in Will County, did wrongfully, wilfully, outrageously and maliciously refuse to allow such inspection. That complaint sought entry onto said premises, prayed that plaintiff be awarded his expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees and finally asked that punitive damages be assessed against the defendant.
On June 24, 1974 the attorneys for each of the respective parties agreed that if the trial court would not issue a formal order the defendant would allow an inspection. On July 1, 1974 an inspection was made of the Will County plant facility.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $15,000. Upon the post trial motion of the defendant the trial court entered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the defendant stating that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which further relief in the nature of attorneys fees and punitive damages could be granted subsequent to the previous inspection of the property by the plaintiff's attorney. The court also found that the complaint was in the nature of a bill of discovery for which punitive damages and attorneys fees are not properly recoverable.
The primary issue presented for review is whether plaintiff's complaint fails to state a cause of action for which attorneys fees and punitive damages may be awarded.
Recently Goetz v. Avildsen Tool and Machines, Inc. (1980), 82 Ill.App.3d 1054, 38 Ill.Dec. 324, 403 N.E.2d 555 dealt with the right of an employee injured at his work place to seek access to the site of his injury in order to investigate the possibility of third party actions. In Goetz the court stated that the plaintiff failed to point to pertinent authority to support her position of a claimed duty on the part of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGrew v. Heinold Commodities, Inc.
...Big Wheels, Inc. (1985), 136 Ill.App.3d 651, 655, 91 Ill.Dec. 293, 296, 483 N.E.2d 639, 642; Rhodes v. Uniroyal, Inc. (1981), 101 Ill.App.3d 328, 330-31, 56 Ill.Dec. 834, 836, 427 N.E.2d 1380, 1382.) Admittedly, punitive damages require a showing that is not required for compensatory damage......
-
State Nat. Bank v. Academia, Inc.
...v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 75 Ill.App.3d 298, 30 Ill.Dec. 876, 393 N.E.2d 1223 (1979); Rhodes v. Uniroyal, Inc., 101 Ill.App.3d 328, 56 Ill.Dec. 834, 836, 427 N.E.2d 1380, 1382 (3 Dist.1981). In the present case, based on our disposition of the Bank's points concerning the underlying cause......
-
Prudential Ins. Co. v. Curt Bullock Builders, Inc.
...directs them. Kerns v. Engelke, 76 Ill.2d 154, 390 N.E.2d 859, 28 Ill.Dec. 500 (1979); Rhodes v. Uniroyal, Inc., 101 Ill.App.3d 328, 427 N.E.2d 1380, 56 Ill.Dec. 834 (3d Dist.1981). Since no statute is involved here, the right to fees would have to be found in the terms of the loan, either ......
-
Zbaraz v. Hartigan, 84 C 771.
...Reagan, 696 F.2d 551 (7th Cir. 1983); By-Prod Corp. v. Armen-Berry Co., 668 F.2d 956 (7th Cir.1982); Rhodes v. Uniroyal, Inc., 101 Ill.App.3d 328, 56 Ill.Dec. 834, 427 N.E.2d 1380 (1981); Ochoa v. Maloney, 69 Ill.App.3d 689, 26 Ill.Dec. 22, 387 N.E.2d 852 (1979). Punitive damages should not......