{
  "id": 1594820,
  "name": "Peggy L. Orr, Administrator of the Estate of Charles E. Orr, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant, v. Morrison Motor Freight, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, and Dycus Oil Company, Inc., and Harold F. Henrichsmeyer, Defendants-Cross-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Orr v. Morrison Motor Freight, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1969-06-03",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 68-77",
  "first_page": "208",
  "last_page": "212",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "109 Ill. App. 2d 208"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "23 NE2d 354",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "302 Ill App 58",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        3146610
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/302/0058-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 NE2d 222",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 NE 1054",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 Ill 462",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        847232
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/202/0462-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 Ill App 423",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2582930
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/104/0423-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 NE2d 801",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 Ill App2d 290",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5152165
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/9/0290-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 NE2d 103",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 NE2d 97",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 Ill App2d 374",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5283956
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/55/0374-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 NE2d 128",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 Ill App2d 125",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5276224
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/50/0125-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 NE2d 504",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 Ill2d 494",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2866138
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/37/0494-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 415,
    "char_count": 7557,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.587,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.059737266535616555
    },
    "sha256": "25aa55dcc8046def105089a013bbd0e2830dcaa7da2d1cd1378d9032337288de",
    "simhash": "1:99251c1f46fec551",
    "word_count": 1246
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:08:29.509800+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "GOLDENHERSH and MORAN, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Peggy L. Orr, Administrator of the Estate of Charles E. Orr, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant, v. Morrison Motor Freight, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, and Dycus Oil Company, Inc., and Harold F. Henrichsmeyer, Defendants-Cross-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EBERSPACHER, J.\nThis is an appeal from a final judgment of a plaintiff administratrix against a corporate motor truck operator, Morrison Motor Freight, Inc., for the wrongful death of plaintiff\u2019s husband, Charles E. Orr, in a highway collision. The judgment was originally entered for $50,000 upon the general verdict, but was reduced to $30,000, the statutory limit in effect at the time of death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate. (Ill Rev Stats 1963, c 70, \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2.)\nThe death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate occurred when a truck driven by him ran into the rear end of defendant\u2019s tractor trailer truck; the latter was standing partially on the paved portion of the outer westbound lane of Interstate 70 in Fayette County, and was not in compliance with statutory regulations regarding the placing of lighted signals in advance of, and upon the roadway side of, such vehicle. (Ill Rev Stats 1963, c 95y%, \u00a7 218.) Evidence was presented by plaintiff from which the jury could have found that the lights on the Morrison truck were not lighted as required by the statute (c 95y%, \u00a7 202, Ill Rev Stats 1963) and that lighted signals were not placed to its rear in compliance with the statute.\nA road service company, Dycus Oil Co., Inc., and its driver, Henrichsmeyer, who at the time of the collision was engaged in making the tire change on defendant-appellant\u2019s truck, were also parties defendant but were exculpated by the jury. The driver for defendant-appellant died (from causes other than the collision) before the suit was filed and his personal representative was not joined. Henrichsmeyer, although at the site of the collision, neither heard nor saw the truck driven by plaintiff\u2019s decedent approach, nor did he see the collision. The case was tried on both negligence and willful and wanton counts.\nMotions for directed verdict were made by appellant, both at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence and at the close of all the evidence. All were denied. A post trial motion was filed by appellant and denied. The notice of appeal prays that this Court set aside the judgment, sustain appellant\u2019s motion for directed verdict made at the close of all the evidence notwithstanding the verdict of the jury and prays judgment for appellant; in the alternative it prays that the cause be remanded for a new trial and such other relief as this Court deems necessary.\nAppellant states its theory on appeal to be that, \u201cThe motions of defendant-appellant for a directed verdict in its favor under both counts of the amended complaint should have been sustained because (a) there was no evidence of a proximate causal relationship between the acts and omissions charged to the defendant-appellant, and (b) there was no evidence that the plaintiff\u2019s intestate was free of negligence or willful and wanton misconduct causing or contributing to cause his death.\u201d Appellant states the issues presented for review are: (1) Was there evidence of a proximate causal relationship between the acts and omissions charged to the defendant-appellant and the death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate so as to permit the cause to go to the jury?, and, (2) Was there evidence of freedom from negligence and willful and wanton misconduct on the part of plaintiff\u2019s intestate so as to permit the cause to go to the jury?\nAs we review these proceedings and presentment here, the issue has been narrowed to the question of whether or not as a matter of law the trial court erred in overruling appellant\u2019s motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence. From our review of all the evidence, when viewed in its aspect most favorable to plaintiff, it does not so overwhelmingly favor appellant that no verdict for plaintiff could ever stand. Pedrick v. Peoria and Eastern Railroad Company, 37 Ill2d 494, 229 NE2d 504.\nIn this case, defendant submitted two special interrogatories to the jury:\n1. \u201cWas Paul D. Holman, driver of the Morrison Motor Freight truck, guilty of willful and wanton misconduct proximately causing the death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate?\u201d The answer of the jury was yes.\n2. \u201cWas plaintiff\u2019s intestate in the exercise of due care and caution at. and immediately prior to the time of the collision, as alleged in plaintiff\u2019s complaint?\u201d The answer of the jury was yes.\nNeither below, nor in this Court, has appellant challenged the answers to the special interrogatories. Therefore, the question of whether there is evidence of defendant\u2019s willful and wanton misconduct which was the proximate cause of the death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate, and the question of whether there is evidence of plaintiff\u2019s contributory negligence is not before this Court. We note that the first interrogatory presented the question of proximate causal relationship between the acts and omissions charged to the appellant. The finding of the jury included in the answer to the second interrogatory being that plaintiff\u2019s intestate was in the exercise of due caution is tantamount to a finding that he was free of willful and wanton misconduct which caused or contributed to his death. The findings are substantially conclusive of the proximate causal relationship and plaintiff\u2019s intestate\u2019s exercise of due care and caution, the facts upon which, under appellant\u2019s theory, the issue of liability depended and which plaintiff allegedly failed to prove. We must under this state of the record, consider the special findings to have been fully sustained by the evidence. Freeman v. Chicago Transit Authority, 50 Ill App2d 125, 200 NE2d 128.\nIn Turnbull v. Porter, 55 Ill App2d 374, 206 NE2d 97, defendant contended there was no evidence of willful and wanton misconduct on the part of defendant. The jury, in answer to a special interrogatory found that he was guilty of willful and wanton misconduct. Defendant did not assign this finding of the jury as error in this post trial motion. The Court said:\n\u201cDefendant did not challenge the jury\u2019s answer to the interrogatory in the trial court and therefore the question of whether there is evidence of defendant\u2019s willful and wanton misconduct is not before us.\u201d 55 Ill App2d 374m, 206 NE2d 103.\nThe Court there relied upon Freeman v. Chicago Transit Authority, supra, and cited Forslund v. Chicago Transit Authority, 9 Ill App2d 290, 132 NE2d 801 and Voight v. Anglo-American Provision Co., in both the Appellate Court, 104 Ill App 423, and the Supreme Court, 202 Ill 462, 66 NE 1054. See also Lipscolm v. Coppage, 44 Ill App2d 430d, e, 195 NE2d 222, in which the plaintiff contended the verdict to be against the weight of the evidence in the post trial motion, but did not in that motion state that the answers to the special interrogatories were against the weight of the evidence. The Court in that case referred to Rubottom v. Crane Co., 302 Ill App 58, 23 NE2d 354, which describes ways a party may escape being conclusively bound by the special finding of the jury.\nWe are presented with no assignment of error as the basis for a new trial, and as a result we affirm the judgment.\nJudgment affirmed.\nGOLDENHERSH and MORAN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EBERSPACHER, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gordon Burroughs, Burroughs, Simpson and Burroughs, of Edwardsville, and Emerson Baetz, of Alton, for appellant.",
      "J. Richard Royal, of Vandalia, and John H. Stern, of Indianapolis, Indiana, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Peggy L. Orr, Administrator of the Estate of Charles E. Orr, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant, v. Morrison Motor Freight, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, and Dycus Oil Company, Inc., and Harold F. Henrichsmeyer, Defendants-Cross-Appellees.\nGen. No. 68-77.\nFifth District.\nJune 3, 1969.\nGordon Burroughs, Burroughs, Simpson and Burroughs, of Edwardsville, and Emerson Baetz, of Alton, for appellant.\nJ. Richard Royal, of Vandalia, and John H. Stern, of Indianapolis, Indiana, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0208-01",
  "first_page_order": 214,
  "last_page_order": 218
}