Smith v. Georgeoff
| Decision Date | 18 November 1946 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 46M12. |
| Parties | SMITH v. GEORGEOFF. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Franklin County; Charles T. Randolph, Judge.
Action for damages for trespass for assault and battery by William M. Smith against Kote Georgeoff. From the judgment, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.W. Joe Hill, of Benton, and Frank E. Trobaugh, of West Frankfort, for appellant.
Paul A. Jones and Rea F. Jones, both of Benton, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Franklin County, finding in favor of appellee, William M. Smith (hereinafter called plaintiff), and entering judgment against appellant, Kote Georgeoff (hereinafter called defendant), in the sum of $1500 and costs of suit.
The action was instituted by plaintiff for damages for trespass for an assault and battery alleged to have been committed by the defendant at the defendant's tavern in West Frankfort, Illinois. The case was tried by the Court, without a jury. The evidence discloses that the plaintiff was 63 years of age and had been a coal miner by occupation, but had not worked steadily for some time. The defendant owned and operated a tavern in the City of West Frankfort, Illinois, in which the plaintiff had been a regular customer.
The evidence indicates that on the 17th day of April, 1944, plaintiff was drinking with two other customers of the defendant and that shortly after a beer had been served to plaintiff, the defendant, who was a man in his early 40's and in robust physical health, weighing approximately 170 pounds, seized plaintiff (who weighed 130 pounds) firmly from behind and forcibly either pushed or threw him out of the tavern. There was evidence that at numerous times in the process of pushing or forcing plaintiff from the tavern that defendant booted and kicked plaintiff with his knee. There was also evidence that defendant was angry at the time. Defendant either pushed or forced plaintiff as far as the doorway of the tavern, and the evidence indicates that plaintiff was ejected from the tavern with sufficient force so that he was thrown down or fell upon the sidewalk in front of the tavern in a sitting position, a distance of about 18 feet from The plaintiff was required to be hospitalized arise and was in great pain as a result of a fracture of his femur in the right hip. The plaintiff was required to be hospitalized and given treatment. His injuries were permanent and there was evidence to the effect that plaintiff would never be able to work again. On the trial of the case before the Court, defendant filed a special defense setting up justification of the assault, but the evidence does not sustain such position. The Court found in favor of plaintiff and assessed plaintiff's damages at $1500, plus costs of suit.
It is contended by defendant that a tavern keeper may forcibly eject a drunken person from his tavern with or without notice to depart, and that such act is not unlawful and the tavern keeper is not liable for an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pechan v. DynaPro, Inc.
...22 Ill.App.3d at 887, 318 N.E.2d 315 (victim alleged in complaint that the plaintiff struck him with his fists); Smith v. Georgeoff (1946), 329 Ill.App. 444, 446, 69 N.E.2d 525 (tavern owner threw plaintiff out of Unlike the situations above, the act of smoking generally is not done with th......
-
Hough v. Mooningham
...are not sufficient justification for the use of force. (See, e.g., Donnelly v. Harris (1866), 41 Ill. 126, 128; Smith v. Georgeoff (1946), 329 Ill.App. 444, 447, 69 N.E.2d 525; Walker v. Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc. (1981), 92 Ill.App.3d 645, 647, 47 Ill.Dec. 900, 902, 415 N.E.2d 1213, 1215......
-
People v. Harvey, Gen. No. 11379
... ... In a civil action for assault and battery, it was held to be unnecessary to allege that the act was 'unlawful'. Smith v. Georgeoff, 329 Ill.App. 444, 69 N.E.2d 525. It is not unreasonable to consider that the words 'without legal justification' are synonymous with ... ...
-
Smith v. Moran
... ... Nelson there was malice behind the second shot, fired for the same purpose, that struck the plaintiff. It has been said that 'proof of express malice is unnecessary and malice can be inferred from wanton and wilful or reckless disregard of plaintiff's rights.' Smith v. Georgeoff, 329 Ill.App. 444, 69 N.E.2d [43 Ill.App.2d 378] 525. We do not regard it as judicial sophistry to say that the firing of a Smith & Wesson 38 in a public eating place under the circumstances of this case was a wanton, willful and reckless disregard not only of the rights and safety of the ... ...