{ "id": 1597013, "name": "GLORIA WILLIAMS, Indiv. and as Special Adm'r of the Estate of Kevin Williams, Deceased, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALAN HALL, as Agent for Italian Fiesta Pizzeria, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Hall", "decision_date": "1997-06-06", "docket_number": "No. 1\u201495\u20142653", "first_page": "917", "last_page": "921", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "288 Ill. App. 3d 917" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "507 N.E.2d 114", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "116" }, { "page": "115" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "154 Ill. App. 3d 336", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3646281 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "340" }, { "page": "339" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/154/0336-01" ] }, { "cite": "422 N.E.2d 925", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "97 Ill. App. 3d 488", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3111081 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/97/0488-01" ] }, { "cite": "502 N.E.2d 332", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "150 Ill. App. 3d 797", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3502572 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/150/0797-01" ] }, { "cite": "543 N.E.2d 1304", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1308" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "129 Ill. 2d 351", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5567184 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "360" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/129/0351-01" ] }, { "cite": "229 N.E.2d 504", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "37 Ill. 2d 494", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2866138 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/37/0494-01" ] }, { "cite": "617 N.E.2d 130", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "246 Ill. App. 3d 1002", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5389303 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/246/1002-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 526, "char_count": 8822, "ocr_confidence": 0.767, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.817300850958923e-08, "percentile": 0.457828815502371 }, "sha256": "7e7a25b11d56fa5c8fb0a7e8e510ced873dd0398451ddefd3446237950462cc9", "simhash": "1:784f11ff8bc734c4", "word_count": 1454 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:57:07.793358+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "GLORIA WILLIAMS, Indiv. and as Special Adm\u2019r of the Estate of Kevin Williams, Deceased, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALAN HALL, as Agent for Italian Fiesta Pizzeria, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE THEIS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiffs appeal the trial court\u2019s order granting defendants\u2019 motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We affirm.\nOn the evening of Saturday May 29, 1988, Kevin Williams, Ronald Hemphill, Derrell Dixon, and Brian Osborne drove to a McDonald\u2019s restaurant on Halsted Street in Chicago. The restaurant was located across the street from the Italian Fiesta Pizzeria. Williams and Hemphill noticed pizza boxes on top of a car parked in front of the pizzeria. After the group left McDonald\u2019s in Dixon\u2019s Jeep, Dixon pulled within a few car lengths of the pizza boxes. Dixon and Hemphill jumped out of the Jeep to grab the boxes. When Dixon and Hemphill discovered the boxes were empty, they dropped the boxes and reentered the Jeep.\nAlan Hall, an Italian Fiesta pizza driver, noticed the group\u2019s activities while inside the pizzeria. Hall exited the pizzeria, yelling at the group to return the pizza boxes. While Dixon drove the Jeep, Hall entered his vehicle and began chasing them. Dixon turned the wrong way onto a one-way street, and Hall continued to pursue them. Dixon collided with another vehicle, which propelled Dixon\u2019s Jeep into a tree. The accident resulted in Williams\u2019 death and Hemphill\u2019s injury. While Hall was not injured in this accident, he subsequently died from other causes.\nPlaintiffs filed a wrongful death action against the pizzeria under theories of negligent hiring and vicarious liability based upon the employment relationship. The trial court granted defendants\u2019 motion for a directed verdict on the plaintiffs\u2019 negligent hiring count. However, the court denied the defendants\u2019 motion as to vicarious liability and allowed the case to proceed to trial on this issue. The defendants presented evidence that the pizzeria specifically informed employees and pizza drivers that they were not to attempt to recover stolen property or punish perpetrators. Rather, the pizzeria\u2019s policy was for supervisors to contact police and file a report in the event of theft. In addition, the pizzeria did not penalize pizza drivers if their property was stolen.\nThe jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs. In their post-trial motion, the defendants claimed that they could not be held liable for Hall\u2019s actions as a matter of law. Accordingly, the defendants argued, they were entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict (judgment n.o.v.). The trial court agreed, stating that \"[i]t\u2019s my opinion that the employee\u2019s deviation from the course of employment was exceedingly marked and unusual. *** [A]s a matter of law the employee was acting outside the scope of his employment.\u201d Plaintiffs appeal, claiming that the court erred in granting judgment n.o.v. We affirm.\nWe review orders granting judgment n.o.v. under a de novo standard. Arellano v. SGL Abrasives, 246 Ill. App. 3d 1002, 617 N.E.2d 130 (1993). A court should enter an order of judgment n.o.v. only when the evidence, viewed in a light favorable to the nonmoving party, so overwhelmingly favors the movant that no contrary verdict could stand. Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. Co., 37 Ill. 2d 494, 229 N.E.2d 504 (1967). In the case at bar, we find that the evidence established that the pizzeria was not liable for Hall\u2019s conduct as a matter of law.\nThe Illinois Supreme Court set forth the standard for holding an employer liable for the conduct of its employees in Pyne v. Witmer, 129 Ill. 2d 351, 543 N.E.2d 1304 (1989). The court relied upon the Restatement (Second) of Agency \u00a7 228 (1958) and stated:\n\" 'Conduct of a servant is within the scope of employment if, but only if:\n(a) it is of the kind he is employed to perform;\n(b) it occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits;\n(c) it is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the master ***.\u2019 \u201d Pyne v. Witmer, 129 Ill. 2d at 360, 543 N.E.2d at 1308, quoting Restatement (Second) of Agency \u00a7 228 (1958).\nAn employer is not liable for the criminal acts of its employees if the act is not committed in furtherance of the employer\u2019s business but, rather, in furtherance of the employee\u2019s purposes. Harrington v. Chicago Sun-Times, 150 Ill. App. 3d 797, 502 N.E.2d 332 (1986). While an employee\u2019s minor deviation from his course of employment will not negate an employer\u2019s liability, extreme and unusual deviations place the conduct outside the scope of employment. Sunseri v. Puccia, 97 Ill. App. 3d 488, 422 N.E.2d 925 (1981). \"The fact that the servant acts in an outrageous manner or inflicts a punishment out of all proportion to the necessities of his master\u2019s business is evidence indicating that the servant has departed from the scope of employment in performing the act.\u201d Restatement (Second) of Agency \u00a7 245, Comment f, at 541 (1958).\nA review of the relevant case law reveals that Hall\u2019s conduct was outside the scope of his employment. For example, in Harrington v. Chicago Sun-Times, the court held that a newspaper driver was not acting within the scope of his employment when he shot an alleged thief along the driver\u2019s route. Harrington, 150 Ill. App. 3d 797, 502 N.E.2d 332. The court ruled that such conduct was too unforeseeable and outrageous, where the employee\u2019s job responsibilities did not include punishing those who attempted to steal the employer\u2019s property. Harrington, 150 Ill. App. 3d 797, 502 N.E.2d 332.\nSimilarly, in Rubin v. Yellow Cab Co., 154 Ill. App. 3d 336, 507 N.E.2d 114 (1987), the court found that the plaintiffs allegations that the defendant\u2019s cab driver struck him about the head and shoulder with a metal pipe after the plaintiffs car blocked the cab driver\u2019s progress were insufficient to state a cause of action. The court noted that the cab driver\u2019s conduct would not result in the collection of a fare or otherwise benefit the employer. The court held that the cab driver\u2019s assault on the plaintiff was \"clearly not an act undertaken to further Yellow Cab\u2019s business but rather one propelled singularly by anger and frustration.\u201d Rubin, 154 Ill. App. 3d at 340, 507 N.E.2d at 116.\nThe instant case parallels Harrington and Rubin in the following respects: (1) the employees were all ostensibly on duty at the time of the incident; (2) the employees were all angered by the plaintiffs\u2019 acts, which were related, at least tenuously, to the employer\u2019s business; and (3) the employees\u2019 acts were not a foreseeable extension of their job responsibilities. The evidence at trial was that the pizza boxes were empty. Even if the pizzas were stolen, the pizzeria directed Hall not to attempt to recover stolen property and the pizzeria did not penalize employees for stolen pizzas. Accordingly, just as in Harrington and Rubin, we find as a matter of law that Hall\u2019s actions were not in furtherance of his employer\u2019s interests.\nThe case law plaintiffs rely upon is readily distinguishable from the instant case. For example, Sunseri v. Puccia, 97 Ill. App. 3d 488, 422 N.E.2d 925 (1981), involved a situation where a bartender committed an intentional tort while attempting to maintain order and protect his employer\u2019s property. The court ruled that a directed verdict was inappropriate because whether such conduct was unforeseeable in light of the bartender\u2019s duties and whether the bartender\u2019s use of force was excessive were questions of fact for the jury. Sunseri, 97 Ill. App. 3d 488, 422 N.E.2d 925. In distinguishing cases involving bartenders and bouncers from other employees, the Rubin court stated that \"[t]he nature of a bartender\u2019s or bouncer\u2019s job makes the use of force during the course of his employment highly probable.\u201d Rubin v. Yellow Cab Co., 154 Ill. App. 3d 336, 339, 507 N.E.2d 114, 115 (1987).\nIn the case at bar there was no evidence presented that would establish even an inference that the use of force was a reasonably foreseeable extension of Hall\u2019s duties. Rather, such conduct was contrary to his employer\u2019s policy of allowing supervisors to handle thefts. We find that, as a matter of law, Hall\u2019s conduct in pursuing the Jeep was an unforeseeable extension of his job responsibilities. Because Hall was acting outside the scope of his employment, we find that the pizzeria could not be held liable for Hall\u2019s conduct as a matter of law. Therefore, we affirm the ruling of the trial court.\nAffirmed.\nZWICK and QUINN, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE THEIS" } ], "attorneys": [ "Michael D. Johnson, of Michael D. Johnson & Associates, of Chicago, for appellants.", "Aronberg, Goldgehn, Davis & Garmisa, of Chicago (Gene H. Hansen and William J. Serritella, Jr., of counsel), for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "GLORIA WILLIAMS, Indiv. and as Special Adm\u2019r of the Estate of Kevin Williams, Deceased, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALAN HALL, as Agent for Italian Fiesta Pizzeria, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFirst District (6th Division)\nNo. 1\u201495\u20142653\nOpinion filed June 6, 1997.\nMichael D. Johnson, of Michael D. Johnson & Associates, of Chicago, for appellants.\nAronberg, Goldgehn, Davis & Garmisa, of Chicago (Gene H. Hansen and William J. Serritella, Jr., of counsel), for appellees." }, "file_name": "0917-01", "first_page_order": 937, "last_page_order": 941 }