{ "id": 2518935, "name": "Robert W. Coady, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James M. Dineen, Jr., Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Coady v. Dineen", "decision_date": "1974-02-14", "docket_number": "No. 12008", "first_page": "1043", "last_page": "1045", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "16 Ill. App. 3d 1043" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "230 N.E.2d 859", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "38 Ill.2d 280", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2860269 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/38/0280-01" ] }, { "cite": "229 N.E.2d 504", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "37 Ill.2d 494", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2866138 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/37/0494-01" ] }, { "cite": "293 N.E.2d 629", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "10 Ill.App.3d 350", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5397010 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/10/0350-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 279, "char_count": 3520, "ocr_confidence": 0.74, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.08171248594029999 }, "sha256": "b17c18aa1f7e6c253b5f60953e420d88c28edfe67f020c56c879409ce86e3428", "simhash": "1:a279c8c6252ae5c8", "word_count": 580 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:47:04.631682+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Robert W. Coady, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James M. Dineen, Jr., Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE TRAPP\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant appeals from a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff in an action for personal injuries. The jury returned a verdict for defendant upon plaintiff\u2019s complaint alleging wilful and wanton conduct. No cross-appeal was filed.\nThe injury was incurred when plaintiff drove his truck across a field which had been partially plowed and was owned by defendant. The plaintiff farmed a parcel of land at the direction of his father. Such parcel and the land farmed by defendant had a common origin in the farm of \u201cgrandfather Coady\u201d. The farm became divided into smaller parcels and was held by various descendants.\nThe testimony suggests that when \u201cgrandfather Coady\u201d farmed the entire holding a field lane had existed which would now bisect the parcel owned by the plaintiff. There is, however, testimony that since 1960 there had been an agreement that defendant\u2019s field would be crossed at the north end.\nIt is contended by plaintiff that by reason of the division the parcel of land owned by his father became landlocked and that the latter had an easement across defendant\u2019s parcel. The testimony shows a long period of family conflict concerning the crossing of defendant\u2019s land by plaintiff. It appears that defendant had plowed across the area which plaintiff claims to be an easement, most years for some eight years. Upon occasion the plowed land had been disced across and the disced area . used as a lane. We conclude that an action for personal injuries is not a legal vehicle to determine interests in land.\nAn issue upon appeal is whether or not plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.\nEarly in the year 1968, plaintiff had had surgery upon his back. While never expressly put, it appears that plaintiff\u2019s theory is that of aggravation of a pre-existing injury. On April 13, 1968, plaintiff drove his truck to the field. He observed furrows described as 16 inches wide and 8 to 10 inches deep. The plowed strip was described as having a number of furrows which made it 128 inches wide. Plaintiff admits that he stopped the truck and observed the furrows. He then proceeded to drive across the plowed ground, perhaps at 10 miles per hour and perhaps at 5 miles per hour. He claims that he suffered injury when the rear wheels of the truck dropped into one of the furrows.\nWhile the record does not adequately disclose what, if any, duty defendant owed to plaintiff, it is clear that plaintiff, through immediate observation and past experience, was aware both of the condition of his back and the existence of the plowed field, but despite such foreknowledge he drove across in a manner inconsistent with ordinary care under the circumstances. (Green v. McClelland, 10 Ill.App.3d 350, 293 N.E.2d 629.) There is no factual dispute concerning plaintiff\u2019s actual observation of the conditions and his choosing to drive across the furrows. Reviewing courts are authorized to finally decide negligence issues contrary to verdicts in situations where such verdicts are not factually sustainable. Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. Co., 37 Ill.2d 494, 229 N.E.2d 504; Keen v. Davis, 38 Ill.2d 280, 230 N.E.2d 859.\nThe judgment is reversed.\nReversed.\nSMITH, P. J., and SIMKINS, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE TRAPP" } ], "attorneys": [ "Gillespie, Burke & Gillespie, P. C., of Springfield, for appellant.", "James T. Londrigan, of Springfield, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Robert W. Coady, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James M. Dineen, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 12008;\nFourth District\nFebruary 14, 1974.\nGillespie, Burke & Gillespie, P. C., of Springfield, for appellant.\nJames T. Londrigan, of Springfield, for appellee." }, "file_name": "1043-01", "first_page_order": 1065, "last_page_order": 1067 }