{
  "id": 2966864,
  "name": "BERNADINE LEIN, Admr., Appellee, v. MARIE PIETRUSZEWSKI et al., Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lein v. Pietruszewski",
  "decision_date": "1975-09-26",
  "docket_number": "No. 47307",
  "first_page": "350",
  "last_page": "353",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "61 Ill. 2d 350"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "54 Ill.2d 127",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2931537
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "131-32"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/54/0127-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "22 Ill.2d 73",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2791226
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "79"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/22/0073-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "402 Ill. 311",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2617357
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "319"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/402/0311-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 Ill. App. 2d 481",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2597240
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "485-87"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/57/0481-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 Ill.2d 406",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2736981
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "426-27"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/20/0406-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 Ill.2d 26",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2773437
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/13/0026-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 Ill. App. 3d 784",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5308238
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/24/0784-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 360,
    "char_count": 5583,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.853,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0024865866463339e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5392725599060022
    },
    "sha256": "a179e4cffcea640cf50fbc65f533df35e137b32f34fcf640e923981e1b921779",
    "simhash": "1:d3e7d10682705c59",
    "word_count": 914
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:02:58.412914+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BERNADINE LEIN, Admr., Appellee, v. MARIE PIETRUSZEWSKI et al., Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MR. JUSTICE KLUCZYNSKI\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nWe granted leave to appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Court, First District, that affirmed a judgment of $20,000 against defendants who are certain owners of the tavern premises and an operator of the tavern. (Lein v. Pietruszewski, 24 Ill. App. 3d 784.) The sole issue presented is whether the amount of the judgment should be limited to $15,000 which was the amount the jury set as damages in a related cause of action for wrongful death. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 70, pars. 1 and 2.\nThe facts encompassing the fatal stabbing of Wilbert Lein are sufficiently recounted in the opinion of the appellate court. Thereafter, plaintiff Bernadine Lein, the wife of deceased and the administrator of his estate, filed a multicount complaint in the circuit court of Cook County. Only two counts of the complaint are involved in this appeal. Count I was predicated upon section 14 of article VI of the Liquor Control Act, more commonly referred to as the Dramshop Act. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 43, par. 135.) It sought damages against the operator of the tavern and the owners of the tavern premises. Count II based liability under the Wrongful Death Act against the deceased\u2019s assailant, who was not a defendant in \u2022 the dramshop action. Pursuant to section 14 of article VI the jury was not instructed that the maximum statutory recovery permitted in the dramshop action was limited to $20,000. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the dramshop action on count I and set damages in the sum of $135,000. The jury found for plaintiff as against the assailant in count II for the wrongful death of Wilbert Lein and set damages in the sum of $15,000. We are advised that the trial court then reduced the dramshop award in count I to $20,000. The deceased\u2019s assailant did not appeal the wrongful death judgment entered against him.\nDefendants in count I assert that damages for wrongful death encompass recovery for \u201cpecuniary injuries\u201d while, as relevant to this appeal, damages under the Dramshop Act are limited to loss of \u201cmeans of support.\u201dDefendants note Hall v. Gillins, 13 Ill.2d 26, wherein this court stated on page 31, that the term \u201cpecuniary injuries\u201d is to be broadly defined and \u201cLoss of support is of course an element of damages under the [wrongful death] statute.\u201d Defendants contend that the element for dram-shop damages is included within the elements of damages for wrongful death. Thus they conclude that damages for dramshop injuries can equal but not exceed damages for wrongful death, and they request this court reduce the dramshop judgment to $15,000. Defendants do not claim that multiple judgments arising from Wilbert Lein\u2019s death were improper under the circumstances nor that the rendition of said judgments was tantamount to allowing plaintiff a \u201cdouble recovery.\u201d (See Dini v. Naiditch, 20 Ill.2d 406, 426-27; Haupt v. Golick, 57 Ill. App. 2d 481, 485-87.) During oral argument of this cause plaintiff\u2019s counsel has asserted that attempts to satisfy the wrongful death judgment entered against Lein\u2019s assailant have been unsuccessful.\nReview of the various appellate court opinions cited by defendants reveals numerous attempts by those subjected to potential liability under the Dramshop Act to preclude or mitigate damages rendered thereunder. Explication of these cases is unnecessary. It is sufficient to note that none of the appellate court decisions concern the precise issue presented in this appeal.\nIn Howlett v. Doglio, 402 Ill. 311, and Knierim v. Izzo, 22 Ill.2d 73, this court addressed itself to a comparison of the Wrongful Death Act and Dram Shop Act. In Doglio the court at page 317 noted that the purposes and objectives of the statutes were essentially different. We further stated that the statutory enactments \u201care not only separate and distinct but are based upon different powers of the State. The rights created by the two statutes do not rest upon the same basis.\u201d (402 Ill. 311, 319.) These conclusions were reaffirmed in Izzo where it was further observed that the bases of liability are not the same in these statutory causes of action. As pertinent to this appeal, we said in Izzo \u201cthat the nature and amount of damages provided for in the Liquor Control Act are not to be limited [citation] or expanded [citation] by the provisions of the Wrongful Death Act.\u201d 22 Ill.2d 73, 79.\nAs previously noted, the sole issue presented is the limiting of the dramshop judgment to the amount entered for wrongful death. There is no contention that the jury was improperly instructed. Nor does any party suggest that plaintiff will receive a \u201cdouble recovery\u201d for loss of means of support if the full satisfaction of the dramshop judgment is obtained.\nEven though there may be a common element as to damages, there exist substantial differences between wrongful death and dramshop actions which militate against affording dramshop defendants the opportunity to limit liability by the fortuitous circumstances presented in this case. (Cf. Wessel v. Carmi Elks Home, Inc., 54 Ill.2d 127, 131-32.) We are of the opinion that the appellate court did not err in rejecting defendants\u2019 contentions and, accordingly, its judgment will be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MR. JUSTICE KLUCZYNSKI"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Heineke & Schrader, of Chicago (Paul H. Heineke, of \u2022 counsel), for appellants.",
      "Mirabella, Facktor, Mirabella & Kincaid, of Wheaton (John B. Kincaid, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 47307.\nBERNADINE LEIN, Admr., Appellee, v. MARIE PIETRUSZEWSKI et al., Appellants.\nOpinion filed, September 26, 1975.\nHeineke & Schrader, of Chicago (Paul H. Heineke, of \u2022 counsel), for appellants.\nMirabella, Facktor, Mirabella & Kincaid, of Wheaton (John B. Kincaid, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0350-01",
  "first_page_order": 362,
  "last_page_order": 365
}