{
  "id": 2787173,
  "name": "William F. Cahill et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. John Keefe, a/k/a John O'Keefe, et al., Defendants-Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cahill v. Keefe",
  "decision_date": "1975-03-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 59147",
  "first_page": "929",
  "last_page": "932",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "26 Ill. App. 3d 929"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "262 N.E.2d 38",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 Ill.App.2d 232",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2473887
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/127/0232-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "201 N.E.2d 253",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 Ill.App.2d 445",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5278946
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/51/0445-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "252 N.E.2d 43",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 Ill.App.2d 198",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1589973
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/113/0198-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 N.E.2d 78",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 Ill.App.3d 534",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5345003
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/13/0534-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 514,
    "char_count": 9036,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.707,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.35364223937380135
    },
    "sha256": "841ea368e2a77a2b85274d71131cc2e90f10d00f08444c370a6a2a997736b73b",
    "simhash": "1:9a2148b984bd0d91",
    "word_count": 1559
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:35:11.694582+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William F. Cahill et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. John Keefe, a/k/a John O\u2019Keefe, et al., Defendants-Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE DEMPSEY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an action for damages resulting from an automobile collision. The plaintiffs sued John Mangum individually and d/b/a Cooling Tower Erectors, and John O\u2019Keefe as an individual and as the agent of John Mangum and Cooling Tower Erectors. O\u2019Keefe failed to appear, and the court directed a verdict against him. The jury returned a verdict for the four plaintiffs against the two defendants in the total amount of $50,000, Mangum contends on appeal that the trial court should have directed a verdict in his favor. Because we agree with this contention, it is not necessary to consider the other issues raised by him.\nAbout 12:30 P.M. on New Years day, January 1, 1969, William Cahill was driving home with his wife Felicia, his son William Jr., and his daughter-in-law Betty, after going to church and having breakfast at a nearby restaurant. Cahill was driving east on Roosevelt Road, a six-lane highway. At the intersection of Roosevelt and Butterfield Road he stopped behind two cars in the inside lane preparatory to making a left turn.\nThe intersection is controlled by traffic lights which when green for eastbound traffic are red for traffic going in the other three directions. When the lights turned green for cars proceeding east, the westbound traffic in Roosevelt Road stopped, and the three cars waiting in the inside lane turned left in succession. While the Cahill car was turning, Betty Cahill saw a westbound car coming toward them from the outside lane of Roosevelt Road. The car was about 60 to 80 feet away and she estimated that its speed was 60 miles an hour. She yelled, \u201cDad, look out!\u201d but the car' came through the red light and crashed into the Cahill auto. All the Cahills were injured (three were knocked unconscious), and they did not see who was in the other car.\nDeputy sheriffs, arrived shortly after the accident. Deputy Robert Kirby talked to John O\u2019Keefe who was sitting in the driver\u2019s seat of the other car, a Buick. O\u2019Keefe told Kirby that John Mangum was driving the car when the collision occurred and that Mangum had gone to look for help. O\u2019Keefe was taken to a hospital as were the four Cahills. Kirby remained at the scene for about an hour and a half and did not see Mangum during that time. He then went to the hospital and questioned O\u2019Keefe again. O\u2019Keefe repeated his story that Mangum had been driving the automobile and gave Kirby Mangum\u2019s address.\nAt the trial there was an objection to Kirby\u2019s testimony about his conversations with O\u2019Keefe. The court ruled that the testimony could only be admitted against O\u2019Keefe and not against John Mangum. Kirby testified that he checked with the Secretary of State of Illinois and found out that O\u2019Keefe did not have a valid driver\u2019s license. He also said that he called John Mangum about January 5 or 6 and asked him whether he owned the Buick. Mangum replied that he had leased the auto for his business but did not know where it was. He asked why he was being questioned and was told that O\u2019Keefe was involved in a collision while he was in the Buick and had informed the police that Manguih was the driver of the car. Mangum denied being in the car at lie time of the accident. He said that he gave the car to O\u2019Keefe, who \u201cwas\u201d an employee, that he had not seen O\u2019Keefe or the car since and on January 3 had reported it stolen. Kirby checked and verified the report of the stolen car. Kirby did not take notes of his conversation with Mangum, and his police report only included the information gleaned from the conversation that the Buick was leased to Mangum and had been reported stolen by him on January 3.\nMangum testified that he was the president and owner of Cooling Tower Erectors. It was stipulated that he and Cooling Tower Erectors would be considered one entity for the purpose of the verdict. He said that his company needed a car late in December 1968 because a pickup truck had broken down, so he leased an auto from Bauer Buick on December 27. He said O\u2019Keefe was hired as a carpenter and had worked for his company between September 15 and December 6, 1968. Received in evidence were cancelled payroll checks paid to O\u2019Keefe by Cooling Tower Erectors dated September 20 to December 6, 1968. Other exhibits received in evidence were a copy of O\u2019Keefe\u2019s wage and tax statement for Federal income tax purposes and a copy of a corporate record kept on him. Mangum denied telling Officer Kirby that he gave the car to O\u2019Keefe or that O\u2019Keefe was a current employee of Cooling Tower Erectors. He testified that the last time he saw O\u2019Keefe was shortly before Christmas 1968 and that the last time he saw the Buick was before New Year\u2019s Eve in the parking lot at his place of business. He discovered the car and the keys that he had placed in or on his desk were gone late in the afternoon on January 2. Mangum and his wife testified that they spent New Year\u2019s Day at home with their children and her parents and that he watched the football games on television. Mangum testified that no employees of Cooling Tower Erectors worked on New Year\u2019s Day.\nJohn O\u2019Keefe\u2019s niece testified that she saw him on New Year\u2019s Day when he attended a family reunion at her grandfather\u2019s house in Wheaton. Dinner was served at 1 P.M. Her uncle appeared to be sick when he arrived which was sometime before 3 o\u2019clock.\nMangum moved for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiffs\u2019 evidence and at the close of all the evidence. The motions were denied as was his post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict of the jury. He contends that denial of the motions was error because there was no proof that he drove the car, that he authorized O\u2019Keefe to drive it or that O\u2019Keefe was acting as his agent.\nThere was no evidence that Mangum drove the car himself. O\u2019Keefe\u2019s statements to that effect made to Officer Kirby were only admitted against O\u2019Keefe. The only evidence that Mangum authorized O\u2019Keefe to drive the car was Kirby\u2019s testimony that Mangum told him he gave the car to O\u2019Keefe. Mangum denied making that statement. Even if O\u2019Keefe used the car with his permission, the plaintiffs would have to prove that O\u2019Keefe acted as his agent before Mangum could be held liable for O\u2019Keefe\u2019s negligence. Insurance Company of North America v. Hewitt-Robbins, Inc. (1973), 13 Ill.App.3d 534, 301 N.E.2d 78; Prewitt v. Hall (1969), 113 Ill.App.2d 198, 252 N.E.2d 43.\nA presumption arises from the proof or admission of ownership of an automobile that it is controlled and driven by the agent of the owner. (Brill v. Davajon (1964), 51 Ill.App.2d 445, 201 N.E.2d 253.) The evidence that Mangum was the lessee of the Buick would raise the same presumption. The presumption creates a prima facie case and throws the burden of showing nonagency on the defendant. However, the presumption is overcome if the defendant produces evidence of nonagency, and if such evidence is strong and unquestionable and the plaintiff presents no contraiy evidence, a verdict may be directed for the defendant. Botich v. P. Lorillard Co. (1970), 127 Ill.App.2d 232, 262 N.E.2d 38; Brill v. Davajon.\nThe plaintiffs\u2019 proof of agency was limited to the fact that the car was leased to Mangum, and to Kirby\u2019s testimony that Mangum said O\u2019Keefe \u201cwas\u201d an employee. In the context in which it was used, the word \u201cwas\u201d could have meant either at the present time or in the past. Mangum clarified Kirby\u2019s ambiguous \u201cwas\u201d with exhibits showing that O\u2019Keefe did not work for Cooling Tower Erectors beyond the first week of December and by his uncontradicted testimony that no employee of Cooling Tower Erectors worked on New Year\u2019s Day. Further, the proof of nonagency was enhanced by the place and time of the accident. Tire testimony by O\u2019Keefe s niece that O\u2019Keefe attended a family reunion on that New Year\u2019s Day in Wheaton provides an explanation for his trip and route. The route that he was taking was on the way to Wheaton and the accident occurred one-half hour before dinner was to be served. This evidence overcame the presumption of agency arising from O\u2019Keefe\u2019s driving Mangum\u2019s auto, and since the plaintiffs presented no evidence to counter the strong and unquestioned proof of nonagency, they failed to sustain their burden of proof.\nThe evidence when viewed most favorably to the plaintiffs so overwhelmingly favored the defendant Mangum that no contrary verdict could stand. Therefore, either his motion for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence or his motion for a judgment n.o.v. should have been allowed.\nThe judgment against John Mangum is reversed. The judgment against John O\u2019Keefe is, of course, undisturbed.\nReversed.\nMcNAMARA and MEJDA, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE DEMPSEY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John W. Purney and Francis W. Gulbranson, both of Chicago, for appellants.",
      "Arent J. Jacobson and John Gilligan, both of Chicago, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William F. Cahill et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. John Keefe, a/k/a John O\u2019Keefe, et al., Defendants-Appellants.\n(No. 59147;\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nMarch 6, 1975.\nJohn W. Purney and Francis W. Gulbranson, both of Chicago, for appellants.\nArent J. Jacobson and John Gilligan, both of Chicago, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0929-01",
  "first_page_order": 955,
  "last_page_order": 958
}