Schek v. Chicago Transit Authority
| Citation | 42 Ill.2d 362,247 N.E.2d 886 |
| Decision Date | 27 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 41240,41240 |
| Parties | Sonya SCHEK, Conservator, Appellee, v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Heineke, Conklin & Schrader, Chicago, for appellant (William H. Schrader and Richard T. Sikes, Chicago, of counsel).
Leo S. and Daniel Karlin, and Jerome H. Torshen, Chicago, for appellee.
This action was brought by the plaintiff on behalf of her ward, Oscar Schek, to recover damages for injuries sustained when the ward was struck by a train operated by the defendant, Chicago Transit Authority. Schek operated a newsstand located on defendant's subway premises under an agreement with Union News Company (Union) which had a written agreement with the defendant authorizing Union to maintain newsstands at various locations upon the defendant's premises.
The agreements between the defendant and Union and between Union and Schek contained indemnity or exculpatory clauses.
The sole issue is whether these clauses shield the defendant from liability for the injuries sustained by Schek. The trial court granted defendant's motion to dismiss, but this ruling was reversed by the Appellate Court, First District, (91 Ill.App.2d 71, 234 N.E.2d 11,) and the cause was remanded to proceed to trial. We granted leave to appeal.
The agreement between Union and the Chicago Transit Authority provided that: 'Company shall indemnify and hold harmless Authority by insurance coverage in amounts and with a company or companies satisfactory to Authority, against all loss and against all suits, actions, claims, liability, judgments for damages, costs and expenses arising from the sale of merchandise hereunder and * * *.' The agreement between Schek and Union provided that: 'Licensee hereby assumes all risk of and liability for loss or damage to property owned by Licensee or third persons, and any injury to or death or any persons (including Licensee), by reason of the condition or operation of said newsstand, and Licensee shall indemnify and save harmless Licensor and Chicago Transit Authority from all claims for any such loss, damage, injury or death, whether caused by the negligence of Licensor, Chicago Transit Authority, their agents or employees, or otherwise.'
Contracts, such as the above, indemnifying another against losses caused by his own negligence were formerly held to be unenforceable as against public policy. (See 27 Am.Jur. Indemnity, sec. 9.) Today, however, nearly all modern case law upholds such agreements, at least when the indemnitee's conduct is not characterized as gross negligence or willful misconduct. (Cases are collected at Anno. 175 A.L.R. 8 (1947), and supplements thereto.) The cases generally assert an interpretational preference against holding that an ambiguous indemnification clause includes losses caused by the indemnitee's own negligence. Some jurisdictions appear to require that the indemnity clause state in unequivocal language an intent to cover the consequences of the indemnitee's own negligence while others show little evidence of such a preference.
The Appellate Court, in its opinion, held that the language of the indemnity clause in the agreement between Schek...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quake Const., Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc.
... ... 535] Bruce W. Plattenberger, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellant ... Katten, Muchin & Zavis, ... (7th Cir.1988), 850 F.2d 1217, 1221, citing Schek" v. Chicago Transit Authority (1969), 42 Ill.2d 362, 247 N.E.2d 886 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Quake Const., Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc.
... ... Stuentzer, of Katten, Muchin & Zavis, Chicago, for appellants ... Richard D. Heytow, of Crystal and ... 117, 407 N.E.2d 615; see Schek v. Chicago Transit Authority (1969), 42 Ill.2d 362, 364, 247 N.E.2d 886.) ... ...
-
Gallagher v. Lenart, 103522.
...Co. v. Northern Insurance Co. of New York, 224 Ill.2d 550, 310 Ill.Dec. 338, 866 N.E.2d 149 (2007); Schek v. Chicago Transit Authority, 42 Ill.2d 362, 364, 247 N.E.2d 886 (1969); see also Farm Credit Bank of St. Louis v. Whitlock, 144 Ill.2d 440, 447, 163 Ill.Dec. 510, 581 N.E.2d 664 (1991)......
-
Downing v. United Auto Racing Ass'n
... ... (James M. Hofert and Russell P. Veldenz, of counsel), Chicago, for defendants-appellants and cross-appellees ... Page 831 ... (Schneiderman v. Interstate Transit Lines Inc. (1946), 394 Ill. 569, 583, 69 N.E.2d 293; see also Adkins v ... Our scope of review does not grant us such authority. See Doser v. Savage Manufacturing and Sales, Inc. (1990), 142 Ill.2d ... (1975), 61 Ill.2d 494, 336 N.E.2d 881; Schek v. Chicago Transit Authority (1969), 42 Ill.2d 362, 247 N.E.2d 886.) In ... ...
-
Contracts, Constitutions, and Getting the Interpretation-construction Distinction Right
...Skycom Corp. v. Telstar Corp., 813 F.2d 810, 814–17 (7th Cir. 1987). 63. Empro, 870 F.2d 423, 425 (quoting Schek v. Chi. Transit Auth., 42 Ill.2d 362, 364 (1969)). 30 THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY [Vol. 18:13 is sometimes essential for determining the understanding of a reas......