Yakupcin v. Baker

Decision Date25 April 1980
Docket NumberNo. 79-31,79-31
Citation83 Ill.App.3d 624,39 Ill.Dec. 278,404 N.E.2d 869
Parties, 39 Ill.Dec. 278 John YAKUPCIN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George P. BAKER, Robert W. Blanchette and Richard Bond, as Trustees of Penn Central Transportation Co., a corporation, Debtor, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Lord, Bissell & Brook, Chicago, for defendants-appellees; Robert P. Schmidt and Hugh C. Griffin, Chicago, of counsel.

SULLIVAN, Presiding Justice:

The sole issue presented in this appeal is the propriety of a summary judgment entered in favor of defendants.

Plaintiff brought this suit after sustaining injuries while loading a boxcar at the Owens-Illinois plant in Streator, Illinois, where he was employed. The boxcar in question, owned by the Santa Fe Railroad, was identified as ATSF 521394. It was equipped with load dividers or bulkheads which could be moved back and forth on tracks inside the car so that its load may be divided or prevented from shifting during transit.

The car was first loaded in Texas and then taken to a warehouse in Indianapolis by Santa Fe and Penn Central. It was unloaded there with nothing irregular having been noted concerning the condition of the car. It was then taken by Penn Central to the Owens-Illinois plant in Gas City, Indiana, where it was partially loaded and sealed by Owens-Illinois employees and then taken to Chicago by Penn Central, where it was transferred to the control of Burlington Northern, Inc., which eventually delivered the boxcar to the Owens-Illinois plant in Streator, Illinois. There it was to be further loaded by plaintiff and his co-employee, George Phillips.

As related by plaintiff in his deposition, Phillips opened the exterior door of the car, and they both entered. Only the north end of the car contained freight, and plaintiff first walked to the south end of the car, intending to move the load divider back to the north end so that it would be flat against the opposite bulkhead. He looked at the tracks which guided the divider and noticed nothing irregular. He then lifted the handle on the south load divider which properly released the pins at the top and bottom of the divider to permit it to slide back and forth on its rollers. As he started to pull the divider toward him, it fell from its track and struck him.

Plaintiff filed this suit for personal injury with Count I alleging negligence on the part of defendants Santa Fe, Burlington Northern, and Penn Central, and Count II asserting a products liability action against Transco, Inc., the manufacturer of the load dividers. Summary judgments were granted in favor of defendants Santa Fe, Burlington Northern, and Transco under section 57 of the Civil Practice Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 110, par. 57), and no appeal has been taken therefrom.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, Penn Central refers to four documents which were prepared in Gas City, Indiana and pertained to ATSF 521394. The first, an "Industry Switch List," was prepared by a Penn Central conductor, and it showed that ATSF 521394 was placed on track 6 of the Owens-Illinois plant in Gas City on July 3, 1972. The second, a "Switch Order" prepared by an Owens-Illinois employee, indicated that the car was at door 10, track 6, and ready to be moved on July 4, 1972. The third, another "Industry Switch List" prepared by a Penn Central conductor, revealed that the loaded car was in fact moved from track 6 on July 4, 1972. The fourth document, a "Straight Bill of Lading" prepared by an employee of Owens-Illinois Another attachment was the affidavit of Fred C. Harper, a Penn Central freight agent, stating that when he received the above bill of lading from Owens-Illinois, it contained a statement that ATSF 521394 was "in apparent good condition."

[39 Ill.Dec. 280] disclosed that the car was loaded with 842 packages of glass bottles in Gas City, sealed, and tendered to Penn Central; and that the load was [83 Ill.App.3d 626] subsequently transferred at Streator, Illinois, to another car, RBWX 79615, because of "car failure." The attached affidavit of W. D. Chapman, a terminal manager employed by Consolidated Rail Corp. (successor in interest to Penn Central), stated that the documents were true and accurate copies of business records.

Penn Central also relied upon portions of the depositions of Thomas L. Nelson and Paul Waggoner. Nelson, an employee of Owens-Illinois at Gas City, stated that on July 5, 1972, he reported for work at 11 p. m. at the Gas City plant; that he loaded a Santa Fe boxcar on that date but could not recall its number; that he believed the car was located at door 10, track 6, but was not positive of that fact; that he inspected the top of the north and south load dividers but noticed nothing unusual; that he pulled the south divider toward him, loaded the south end of the car and pushed the divider back without difficulty; that he loaded the north end of the car and, as he was pushing the north divider back against the ware, the divider came off the track; that up until that time the door was in good condition to the extent of his observation; and that he called his foreman, Paul Waggoner, who with Nelson eventually closed and sealed the car. Waggoner, who was Nelson's supervisor in July of 1972, stated that there was a problem with a load divider on a boxcar located at door 10, track 6, but that he did not recall the exact date; that he arrived on the scene with an individual named Burke after having been called by Nelson; that they lifted the faulty divider, put the pins into place, placed boards underneath it, and nailed wood to the side wall in an effort to remedy the difficulty; that he later notified his supervisor at Owens-Illinois of the problem but did not notify Penn Central, Burlington Northern, or Santa Fe; and that personnel at these railroads would have no knowledge of the occurrence unless notified by Owens-Illinois.

Relying on the above documents, affidavits and depositions, Penn Central argued essentially that when ATSF 521394 arrived at Gas City, the dividers were not defective, as indicated in Nelson's deposition testimony; that Penn Central had therefore breached no duty up to this point; that the first time a problem arose with the dividers was in Gas City when one came off its tracks; that at this time the car was under the control of Owens-Illinois; that Penn Central was never notified of this problem, and the car was sealed by Owens-Illinois; that the car was transferred by Penn Central under seal to Chicago, where Burlington Northern then took over its control and delivered it to Owens-Illinois, in Streator; that plaintiff was injured due to the same difficulty with the load divider experienced in Gas City by Owens-Illinois employees, Nelson and Waggoner; that while the car was under seal, Penn...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Thiede v. Tambone
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 17. April 1990
    ...the nonmovant may rely on reasonable inferences drawn from the materials considered on the motion. Yakupcin v. Baker (1980), 83 Ill.App.3d 624, 627, 39 Ill.Dec. 278, 404 N.E.2d 869. Lastly, but no less importantly, the nonmovant is not required to prove his case in opposition to the summary......
  • McBride v. Commercial Bank of Champaign
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 19. November 1981
    ... ... (Indiana Harbor Belt R. R. Co. v. Budd Co. (1980), 87 Ill.App.3d 91, 42 Ill.Dec. 235, 408 N.E.2d 944; Yakupcin v. Baker (1980), 83 Ill.App.3d 624, 39 Ill.Dec. 278, 404 N.E.2d 869.) This the Bank has failed to do ...         In examining the documents ... ...
  • Lassai v. Holy Cross Hosp.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 27. Dezember 1991
    ...exists. (Duffy v. Midlothian Country Club (1980), 92 Ill.App.3d 193, 47 Ill.Dec. 786, 415 N.E.2d 1099; Yakupcin v. Baker (1980), 83 Ill.App.3d 624, 39 Ill.Dec. 278, 404 N.E.2d 869.) Summary judgment is a drastic remedy which should only be allowed when the right of the moving party is clear......
  • Duffy v. Midlothian Country Club, 79-1400
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 24. Dezember 1980
    ...affidavits, and other documents show that the movant is entitled to it as a matter of law, (Yakupcin v. Baker (1st Dist. 1980), 83 Ill.App.3d 624, 39 Ill.Dec. 278, 404 N.E.2d 869; McCann v. Bethesda Hosp. (1st Dist. 1980), 80 Ill.App.3d 544, 35 Ill.Dec. 879, 400 N.E.2d 16) as it is a drasti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT