{
  "id": 5218780,
  "name": "Pauline Latsis, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Julia M. Walsh, d/b/a Walsh's Cocktail Lounge, Nate Levin, Mary Matimore, d/b/a 2 Deuces Tavern, and Andre Flood, Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Latsis v. Walsh",
  "decision_date": "1960-11-14",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 48,034",
  "first_page": "91",
  "last_page": "95",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 Ill. App. 2d 91"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "33 N.E.2d 169",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1941,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "309 Ill. App. 397",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        3377177
      ],
      "year": 1941,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "405-06"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/309/0397-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 N.E.2d 411",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1945,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 Ill. App. 598",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4942352,
        4942829
      ],
      "year": 1945,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/326/0598-01",
        "/ill-app/326/0598-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 N.E.2d 495",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "340 Ill. App. 613",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4999973
      ],
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/340/0613-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 N.E.2d 104",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1941,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "310 Ill. App. 582",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        3376506
      ],
      "year": 1941,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "595-96"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/310/0582-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 N.E.2d 761",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1943,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "320 Ill. App. 250",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4981869
      ],
      "year": 1943,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "255"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/320/0250-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "146 N.E.2d 205",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1957,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Ill.App.2d 311",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5176365
      ],
      "year": 1957,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "329"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/15/0311-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 N.E.2d 241",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1954,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Ill.2d 511",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12131280
      ],
      "year": 1954,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/2/0511-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Ill.2d 77",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2785832
      ],
      "year": 1957,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/11/0077-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "135 N.E.2d 492",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1956,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 Ill.App.2d 529",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5158861
      ],
      "year": 1956,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "552"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/10/0529-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 N.E.2d 381",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1954,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Ill.App.2d 112",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5126776,
        5130351
      ],
      "year": 1954,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/3/0112-02",
        "/ill-app-2d/3/0112-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 N.E.2d 210",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1947,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "330 Ill. App. 427",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        3412982,
        3410943
      ],
      "year": 1947,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/330/0427-01",
        "/ill-app/330/0427-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 N. E. 10",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "year": 1929,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "335 Ill. 432",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5790597
      ],
      "year": 1929,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "436"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/335/0432-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "143 N.E.2d 558",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1957,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 Ill.App.2d 128",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5174657
      ],
      "year": 1957,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "133-34"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/14/0128-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 N.E.2d 484",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1958,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 Ill.App.2d 454",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5177913
      ],
      "year": 1958,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "460"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/16/0454-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 376,
    "char_count": 4755,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.513,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.490011498157266e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4861638651519838
    },
    "sha256": "051e383d33d8411186dd5aecce2a9e4f24bb716eff343be849743b07724c4fbf",
    "simhash": "1:5040129d3de71587",
    "word_count": 780
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:20.019953+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "BURMAN and MURPHY, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Pauline Latsis, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Julia M. Walsh, d/b/a Walsh\u2019s Cocktail Lounge, Nate Levin, Mary Matimore, d/b/a 2 Deuces Tavern, and Andre Flood, Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MR. PRESIDING- JUSTICE KILEY\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is a dram shop action with verdict and judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff has appealed.\nPlaintiff\u2019s nose was injured when she was struck in an altercation between a husband and wife with whom she had been sitting at the bar of a Chicago tavern. The plaintiff contends that the verdict is against the manifest weight of evidence on the issues whether the person whose blow struck her was intoxicated at the time and whether plaintiff \u201cwas guilty of complicity in procuring his intoxication.\u201d She also contends that she was prejudiced at the trial in the giving of two instructions and by the jury argument of an attorney for defendants.\nWe see no merit in the first contention. The jury could have found on the evidence, though denied by her, that plaintiff bought drinks for the person who struck her before she was struck. And there was ample evidence otherwise to sustain the verdict.\nThe trial court in one peremptory instruction tried to \u201csettle the degree of intoxication necessary to liability.\u201d This was error. Shea v. LaCost, 16 Ill.App.2d 454, 460, 148 N.E.2d 484 (1958); Schwehr v. Badalamenti, 14 Ill.App.2d 128, 133-34, 143 N.E.2d 558 (1957); People v. Rewland, 335 Ill. 432, 436,167 N. E. 10 (1929). In another peremptory instruction there was imposed on plaintiff as an element of her burden of proof, \u201cthat the plaintiff did not participate in procuring the intoxication\u201d of the person who struck her. This is not the law and the giving of the instruction was error. Adkins v. Williams, 330 Ill. App. 427, 71 N.E.2d 210 (1947); Darby v. Donahue, 3 Ill.App.2d 112, 120 N.E.2d 381 (1954); Danhof v. Osborne, 10 Ill.App.2d 529, 552, 135 N.E.2d 492 (1956), rev\u2019d on other grounds, 11 Ill.2d 77 (1957); 25 ILP, Liquor, Sec. 167 (1953).\nThere seems to be a trend away from the strict rule requiring reversing judgments for erroneous instructions. Duffy v. Cortesi, 2 Ill.2d 511, 119 N.E.2d 241 (1954); Bunton v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 15 Ill.App.2d 311, 329, 146 N.E.2d 205 (1957); Kavanaugh v. Washburn, 320 Ill. App. 250, 255, 50 N.E.2d 761 (1943); Palmer v. Miller, 310 Ill. App. 582, 595-96, 35 N.E.2d 104 (1941).\nIn Duffy v. Cortesi our Supreme Court applied to a peremptory instruction, a rule which it cited with respect to general considerations of non-peremptory instructions. We think the Court implied that an erroneous peremptory instruction need not require reversal if the record affirmatively shows the error was not prejudicial and could not have misled the jury. The Court cited Anderson v. Brown, 340 Ill. App. 613, 92 N.E.2d 495 (1950) to the rule it applied and while in that case the rule was applied to a non-peremptory instruction, the court there cited for the rule the authority of Westinghouse Elec. Elevator Co. v. LaSalle Monroe Bldg. Corp., 326 Ill. App. 598, 63 N.E.2d 411 (1945).\nIn the Westinghouse case this court considered complaints against the trial courts\u2019 refusal to give peremptory and non-peremptory instructions which had been offered. It found no error in the refusal to give the instructions and supported its ruling by a quotation which stated \u201cone test\u201d of prejudice in instructions is that if, \u201cthe result ... is correct the error is not reversible.\u201d\nWe are of the opinion that despite the fact that these instructions were seriously erroneous we are not required, for that reason alone, to find that they were prejudicially erroneous so as to necessitate reversal. We think even the uncontroverted testimony of the circumstances before and at the time of plaintiff\u2019s injury would not support a verdict for plaintiff and that the record in this case shows affirmatively that the jury was not misled. The jury could not reasonably have returned any other verdict than that of not guilty because the uncontroverted testimony showed conclusively that plaintiff was a \u201cwilling party\u201d not entitled to recover. James v. Wicker, 309 Ill. App. 397, 405-06, 33 N.E.2d 169 (1941).\nFinally, we find no merit in the contention that plaintiff was prejudiced by the argument of a defendant\u2019s attorney.\nFor the reasons given, the judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nBURMAN and MURPHY, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MR. PRESIDING- JUSTICE KILEY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Joseph Barbera, of Chicago (John W. Schelthoff and Charles D. Snewind, of counsel) for appellant.",
      "Heineke, Conklin & Schrader, and Morris, Liss, Arnold & Hennessy, all of Chicago (Paul H. Heineke, Ralph Miller, and William L. Arnold, of counsel) for appellees Mary Matimore and Julia M. Walsh."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Pauline Latsis, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Julia M. Walsh, d/b/a Walsh\u2019s Cocktail Lounge, Nate Levin, Mary Matimore, d/b/a 2 Deuces Tavern, and Andre Flood, Defendants-Appellees.\nGen. No. 48,034.\nFirst District, First Division.\nNovember 14, 1960.\nJoseph Barbera, of Chicago (John W. Schelthoff and Charles D. Snewind, of counsel) for appellant.\nHeineke, Conklin & Schrader, and Morris, Liss, Arnold & Hennessy, all of Chicago (Paul H. Heineke, Ralph Miller, and William L. Arnold, of counsel) for appellees Mary Matimore and Julia M. Walsh."
  },
  "file_name": "0091-01",
  "first_page_order": 101,
  "last_page_order": 105
}