Richardson v. Ansco, Inc.

• Decision Date: 31 August 1979
• Docket Number: No. 79-30,79-30
• Citation: 31 Ill.Dec. 599,75 Ill.App.3d 731,394 N.E.2d 801
• Parties: , 31 Ill.Dec. 599 Todd RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANSCO, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 801

394 N.E.2d 801

75 Ill.App.3d 731, 31 Ill.Dec. 599

Todd RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANSCO, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 79-30.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Aug. 31, 1979.

William H. Knuppel, Lemmer, Boggs, Knuppel & Krebaum, P.C., Havana, for plaintiff-appellant.

Robert V. Dewey, Jr., Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, Peoria, for defendant-appellee.

STENGEL, Justice:

Plaintiff Todd Richardson was seriously injured when the truck in which he was riding struck a bridge along a blacktop road in Fulton County, Illinois, while plaintiff and Jimmie L. Derry, Jr., the owner and driver of the truck, were returning home from work at the job site where both men were employed by Ansco, Inc. Plaintiff filed suit against Ansco, alleging that Derry consumed alcoholic liquor while at work on the day of the accident, that defendant knew or should have known Derry consumed alcoholic liquor at work, that Derry's intoxication was the direct and proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries, that defendant knew or should have known all employees had to travel in motor vehicles to reach the job site, that defendant had a duty to plaintiff and all other employees not to allow its employees to become intoxicated at work, and that in violation of its duty, defendant allowed Derry to become intoxicated during his employment, which intoxication was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, as was a subsequent motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff has perfected this appeal.

Plaintiff seeks judicial recognition of a common law negligence cause of action against an employer who allows an employee to become intoxicated at work with the knowledge that the employee would be driving home. Such a ruling would be a departure from the established law of Illinois concerning liability for damages resulting from intoxication. Noncommercial suppliers of liquor are not liable under the Dram Shop Act (See Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 43, par. 94, et seq.), and Illinois courts have consistently refused to enlarge the scope of the Act to impose statutory liability upon anyone not engaged in the liquor business. (Camille v. Berry Fertilizers, Inc. (4th Dist. 1975), 30 Ill.App.3d 1050, 334 N.E.2d 205; Annot., 8 A.L.R.3d 1412 (1966).) Furthermore, Illinois has never recognized a common law remedy against the supplier of liquor; the only remedy is that provided by the legislature in the Dram Shop Act. Cunningham v. Brown (1961), 22 Ill.2d 23, 174 N.E.2d 153.

Plaintiff argues that there is a "judicial trend" toward abolishing common law immunities from liability and that the immunity given to those who supply liquor noncommercially represents an undesirable social policy. It would unduly lengthen this opinion to discuss the numerous law review articles and decisions from other jurisdictions which plaintiff has cited.

It has been held that any extension of liability for damages arising...