{ "id": 3612198, "name": "CRAIG VOLLING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMOCO CHEMICAL CORPORATION et al., Defendants (Relco Locomotive, Inc., Defendant-Appellee)", "name_abbreviation": "Volling v. Amoco Chemical Corp.", "decision_date": "1987-08-13", "docket_number": "No. 3-87-0010", "first_page": "424", "last_page": "429", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "159 Ill. App. 3d 424" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "374 N.E.2d 1147", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "58 Ill. App. 3d 1003", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5628447 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/58/1003-01" ] }, { "cite": "313 N.E.2d 457", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "57 Ill. 2d 376", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5407090 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/57/0376-01" ] }, { "cite": "483 N.E.2d 21", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "136 Ill. App. 3d 172", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3565530 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/136/0172-01" ] }, { "cite": "479 N.E.2d 1211", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "134 Ill. App. 3d 100", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3637580 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/134/0100-01" ] }, { "cite": "395 N.E.2d 1158", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "77 Ill. App. 3d 337", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3289845 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/77/0337-01" ] }, { "cite": "425 N.E.2d 1055", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "99 Ill. App. 3d 382", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3098220 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/99/0382-01" ] }, { "cite": "468 N.E.2d 477", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "127 Ill. App. 3d 95", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3563658 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/127/0095-01" ] }, { "cite": "240 N.E.2d 699", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "99 Ill. App. 3d 146", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 478, "char_count": 8984, "ocr_confidence": 0.79, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.470291726553117e-08, "percentile": 0.398694672932669 }, "sha256": "b23e88678522f7b8b05ff122cfca43a19bcb71589455a83658c3740a79877282", "simhash": "1:3afb86cebe6af664", "word_count": 1418 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:20.000303+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "CRAIG VOLLING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMOCO CHEMICAL CORPORATION et al., Defendants (Relco Locomotive, Inc., Defendant-Appellee)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE SCOTT\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff, Craig Volling, brought this action against defendants Amoco Chemical Corporation, a division of Standard Oil Indiana, Inc.; American Car Foundry Industries, Inc.; Amcar, a division of A.C.F. Inc.; and Releo Locomotive, Inc., seeking damages for injuries he sustained while working in the switchyard at the Amoco Chemical Company plant in Channahon, Illinois.\nOn July 20, 1982, Volling, an employee of Joliet Manpower, Inc., was assigned to switching duties involving chemical hopper cars pulled by an engine which was leased to Amoco by defendant-appellee, Releo Locomotive, Inc., and which was operated by an Amoco employee. In attempting to climb aboard one of the hopper cars as it was moving, Volling fell under the car\u2019s wheels, sustaining severe injuries to his legs resulting in the amputation of both legs.\nIn January 1984, Volling filed a three-count complaint alleging (1) that Amoco failed to maintain its property and failed to adequately instruct Volling and other employees in proper switching operation procedures; (2) that American Foundry Industries, Inc., and Amcar improperly designed the chemical hopper cars used by Amoco and failed to give adequate warnings concerning their operation; and (3) that Releo Locomotive, Inc., failed to maintain and inspect the engine pulling the hopper car which injured Volling and, specifically, failed to maintain and inspect the engine\u2019s throttle.\nAfter filing an answer denying any negligence or action causing or contributing to Volling\u2019s injuries, Releo filed a motion for summary judgment. In support of the motion, Releo submitted answers to interrogatories given to James Semple, the operator of the engine at the time of the incident, and an affidavit of Relco\u2019s vice-president of operations describing the inspection and maintenance history of the engine prior to and subsequent to the incident. Mr. Semple asserted in his answers to interrogatories that at the time of the incident the engine in general was operating properly, that he was neither applying the throttle nor the brakes when Volling fell from a hopper car, and that the engine\u2019s throttle and brakes were not malfunctioning. Relco\u2019s vice-president of operations stated in his affidavit that there were no problems with the engine\u2019s brakes or throttle on the day of the incident and that only standard maintenance had been performed on the engine prior to and subsequent to the incident.\nIn the hearing on Relco\u2019s motion for summary judgment, the trial court granted Volling\u2019s motion to strike the affidavit of Relco\u2019s vice-president as conclusory. After reviewing Semple\u2019s answers to the interrogatories, along with excerpts of his deposition testimony submitted in opposition to Relco\u2019s motion, the trial court then entered summary judgment for Releo on October 27,1986.\nVolling thereafter filed a motion to reconsider with the trial court and in support of his motion submitted a transcript of Semple\u2019s entire deposition, along with his complete deposition. In his motion, Volling maintained the depositions revealed that genuine issues of material fact existed concerning Relco\u2019s negligence and that Semple was not competent to testify as to Relco\u2019s freedom from negligence concerning the maintenance and inspection of the engine. Volling did not request the trial court to strike Semple\u2019s answers prior to the entry of summary judgment when he challenged the affidavit of Rel-co\u2019s vice-president of operations.\nThe trial court denied Volling\u2019s motion to reconsider, refused to vacate its entry of summary judgment, and Volling brings the instant appeal. Volling requests this court to reverse the trial court\u2019s grant of summary judgment and its order denying his motion to reconsider. The issue presented for our review is whether the record before the trial court was sufficient at law to warrant and sustain the grant of summary judgment to Releo Locomotive, Inc.\nIt is the well-settled law of this State that a party is entitled to a grant of summary judgment when the pleadings, depositions and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 1005(c); Ruby v. Wayman (1968), 99 Ill. App. 3d 146, 240 N.E.2d 699.) Further, when resisting a motion for summary judgment, a party is not required to prove his cause in hearing on the motion, but is required to present a sufficient factual basis to entitle him to a judgment. (Koukoulomatis v. Disco Wheels, Inc. (1984), 127 Ill. App. 3d 95, 468 N.E.2d 477; Wooding v. L & J Press Corp. (1981), 99 Ill. App. 3d 382, 425 N.E.2d 1055; Conrad v. Christ Community Hospital (1979), 77 Ill. App. 3d 337, 395 N.E.2d 1158.) Volling\u2019s complaint on its face initially raises an issue of material fact, to wit, whether Releo breached its duty to properly inspect and maintain the engine which was operated by Semple on the day Volling was injured. However, unless Volling can be found to have presented evidentiary facts which form a factual basis establishing a breach of duty and that the breach proximately caused Volling\u2019s injuries, Releo is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Golden v. Marshall Field & Co. (1985), 134 Ill. App. 3d 100, 479 N.E.2d 1211; Pedersen v. Joliet Park District (1985), 136 Ill. App. 3d 172, 483 N.E.2d 21; Carruthers v. B. C. Christopher & Co. (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 376, 313 N.E.2d 457.\nIn the hearing on Relco\u2019s motion for summary judgment, the trial court was presented with James Semple\u2019s uncontradicted answers to interrogatories stating affirmatively that the brakes and throttle of the engine operated properly the day of Volling\u2019s accident. Further, Semple asserted that he was not applying the engine\u2019s brake or the throttle when Volling fell from a hopper ear, nor did Volling come in contact with the engine when he was injured. In responding to Relco\u2019s motion, Volling did not move to strike the answers to the interrogatories, nor did he file with the court materials directly contradicting Semple\u2019s observations. After summary judgment was entered and on filing his motion to reconsider, Volling challenged Semple\u2019s answers to the interrogatories contending the answers were conclusory in nature and form and that Semple was not competent to render the answers.\nOur review of the record reveals the answers given by Semple relating to his operation of the throttle and brake at the time of the incident, and his observation of their functioning, are clearly within his competency to render and are properly considered direct observations of the engine\u2019s performance furnished by an occurrence witness. Therefore they are admissible for consideration by the trial court in hearing a motion for summary judgment.\nIn challenging Semple\u2019s competency to answer the interrogatories directed to him, we find Volling\u2019s presentment of excerpts from Sample\u2019s deposition which address his training on and knowledge of Relco\u2019s engine go to the issue of his competency to render expert opinion testimony, not occurrence testimony. The excerpts do not contradict Semple\u2019s observations nor can they, along with Volling\u2019s deposition testimony, be found to amount to a presentment of facts and evidence supporting his claim that Releo improperly inspected and maintained the engine and was therefore liable for his injuries.\nIn filing his motion to reconsider, Volling submitted his deposition and that of Semple, each in their entirety. The trial court found that the complete depositions did not justify a reconsideration of its entry of summary judgment. We find no error in the trial court\u2019s conclusion that Volling\u2019s deposition does not sufficiently conflict with Semple\u2019s to establish a genuine issue of material fact concerning Relco\u2019s alleged negligence.\nThis court is mindful that summary judgment is a drastic remedy to be cautiously applied. We find, however, that Volling has presented no genuine issue of material fact entitling him to judgment against Releo under applicable law. The record presented to the trial court failed to demonstrate that Volling could show negligent acts or omissions by Releo which caused or contributed to Volling\u2019s injuries. (Hill v. Lutheran Hospital (1978), 58 Ill. App. 3d 1003, 374 N.E.2d 1147.) We therefore affirm the trial court\u2019s entry of summary judgment in favor of Releo Locomotive, Inc., and the trial court\u2019s denial of Volling\u2019s motion to reconsider.\nAccordingly, the summary judgment entered by the circuit court of Will County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nHEIPLE and WOMBACHER, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE SCOTT" } ], "attorneys": [ "James M. Dupree, of Holstein, Mack & Dupree, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Edward Rubin, John W. Bell, and Thomas H. Fegan, all of Johnson, Cusack & Bell, of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CRAIG VOLLING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMOCO CHEMICAL CORPORATION et al., Defendants (Relco Locomotive, Inc., Defendant-Appellee).\nThird District\nNo. 3 \u2014 87\u20140010\nOpinion filed August 13, 1987.\nJames M. Dupree, of Holstein, Mack & Dupree, of Chicago, for appellant.\nEdward Rubin, John W. Bell, and Thomas H. Fegan, all of Johnson, Cusack & Bell, of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0424-01", "first_page_order": 446, "last_page_order": 451 }