{ "id": 2718666, "name": "VERONICA BLAKELY, a Minor, by Milton Blakely, her Father and Next Friend, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHIRLEY JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Blakely v. Johnson", "decision_date": "1976-02-25", "docket_number": "No. 61598", "first_page": "112", "last_page": "116", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "37 Ill. App. 3d 112" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "100 Ill. App. 2d 444", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2820391 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/100/0444-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 Ill. App. 3d 113", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2912041 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/4/0113-01" ] }, { "cite": "30 Ill. App. 3d 657", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2620975 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/30/0657-01" ] }, { "cite": "200 N.E.2d 143", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "50 Ill. App. 2d 389", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5275655 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/50/0389-01" ] }, { "cite": "170 N.E.2d 564", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "20 Ill. 2d 548", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2737854 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/20/0548-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Ill. App. 3d 557", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5313673 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "561" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/1/0557-01" ] }, { "cite": "216 N.E.2d 14", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "68 Ill. App. 2d 283", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2595043 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "290" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/68/0283-01" ] }, { "cite": "9 Ill. App. 3d 606", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2845655 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "619-20" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/9/0606-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 473, "char_count": 8153, "ocr_confidence": 0.777, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3876307665117934e-07, "percentile": 0.6417632842686968 }, "sha256": "a46999b4ee98e85e23e89197e533e16fdd41ff2b3bb39467ea7aad3787eb3e41", "simhash": "1:aeb3247cca11d7c2", "word_count": 1393 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:14:56.744968+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "VERONICA BLAKELY, a Minor, by Milton Blakely, her Father and Next Friend, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHIRLEY JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE DIERINGER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe plaintiff, Veronica Blakely, a minor, by Milton Blakely, her father and next friend, appeals from a judgment entered in the Circuit Court of Cook County after a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, Shirley Johnson.\nThe issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff the right to call a doctor as a witness whose name was not disclosed in answers to interrogatories.\nVeronica Blakely, aged 4% at the time of the accident and aged 9 at the time of the trial, was injured on August 14, 1970, when she was struck by a car driven by Shirley Johnson at or near the comer of 147th Street and Winchester Avenue in Harvey, Illinois. A complaint was filed on May 26, 1971, charging the defendant with negligence. An answer filed on July 30, 1971, denied all material allegations contained in the complaint, and interrogatories were served on the plaintiff on the same date.\nAnswers to the interrogatories disclosed the plaintiff was treated by Dr. Loew and \u201cother doctors unknown at this time,\u201d and that the plaintiff was treated at Ingalls Memorial Hospital and the University of Chicago Hospital. The deposition of Milton Blakely, the father and next friend of the minor was also taken, and he indicated his daughter was treated at the University of Chicago Hospital.\nOn October 30, 1972, the plaintiff subpoenaed the medical records from the University of Chicago Hospital, with notice to the defendant.\nSupplemental interrogatories were served on the plaintiff on April 9, 1974, which inquired as to the names and addresses of doctors, learned since October 18, 1971, who treated the plaintiff for injuries sustained in the occurrence specified in the complaint. On April 18, 1974, an \u201cOrder For Production\u201d stated the parties were to provide a list giving the names, addresses and specialties of all expert witnesses. Neither the supplemental interrogatories nor the order were answered by the plaintiff.\nUpon commencement of the trial on October 4, 1975, the plaintiff\u2019s counsel in his opening argument stated he would call Dr. Ganz from the University of Chicago Hospital. During the course of the trial, when the plaintiff attempted to call Dr. Ganz as a witness, the defendant\u2019s attorney objected, based on the fact that his name had not been revealed previously.\nWhen the court sustained the objection, the plaintiff\u2019s attorney became upset and did not call his remaining occurrence witness. He rested, stating that without the testimony of Dr. Ganz he was unable to prove the injury to the plaintiff and thus, was deprived of his right and duty to prove all the necessary elements of his case. Plaintiff\u2019s counsel then made an oral motion and a subsequent written motion to reopen the case, and put Dr. Ganz on the stand subject to allowing defense counsel to depose him. He argued the defendant knew through interrogatories and by deposition that the plaintiff had been treated at the University of Chicago Hospital, that the records were available to defendant, and that the name of Dr. Ganz appeared on those records. He also appealed to the court on the basis that the plaintiff was a minor and was a ward of the court entitled to its protection. The court denied the motions and denied a subsequent motion for a mistrial, as well.\nDefense counsel put on his case, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant and answered \u201cNo\u201d to the special interrogatory: \u201cWas the defendant, before and at the time of the occurrence in question, guilty of negligence which was the proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff?\u201d Plaintiff\u2019s post-trial motion was denied on December 15, 1974.\nThe plaintiff contends the court abused its discretion in refusing the plaintiff the right to call a witness on the element of injury resulting in damage to the plaintiff. Supreme Court Rule 219(c) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 110A, \u00a7219(c)) provides:\n\u201c(c) Failure to Comply with Order or Rules. If a party, or any person at the instance of or in collusion with a party, unreasonably refuses to comply with any provision of Rules 201 through 218, or fails to comply with any order entered under these rules, the court, on motion, may enter, in addition to remedies elsewhere specifically provided, such orders as .are just, including, among others, the following:\n\u00bb * e\n(iv) that a witness be barred from testifying concerning that issue.\u201d\nIn the case of Carlson v. General Motors Corp. (1972), 9 Ill. App. 3d 606, 619-20, the court stated the general rule as to when a witness may be barred from testifying:\n\u201cIt is the general rule that the appropriateness of imposing sanctions against a party for non-compliance with the discovery rules (if a sanction is to be imposed at all) is within the discretion of the trial judge. (Buckler v. Sinclair Refining Co., 68 Ill. App. 2d 283, 290, 216 N.E.2d 14.) Factors to be considered are the surprise of the testimony to the opposing party * * * the prejudicial effect of the testimony, the diligence of the opposing party in seeking discovery, timely objection to the testimony and good faith of the party calling the witness * *\nIn the case at bar it appears there was no breach of good faith on the part of the plaintiff in that there was no attempt to hide the witness. It also appears there was no surprise to the defendant because it was reasonable for defense counsel to expect that a doctor would testify as to the plaintiff\u2019s injuries. There should have been no prejudice to the defendant, particularly if an opportunity was given to the defense counsel to depose the witness.\nIt is significant that the plaintiff was a ward of the court as a minor and was entitled to the court\u2019s protection. In the case of Scheffki v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific R.R. Co. (1971), 1 Ill. App. 3d 557, 561, the court stated:\n\u201cDefendant\u2019s argument overlooks that this case involves a minor. It is the public policy of this state that rights of minors be carefully guarded. (Muscarello v. Peterson, 20 Ill. 2d 548, 170 N.E.2d 564.) A minor who becomes a party to a litigation is a ward of the court, and a duty devolves upon the court to protect his rights. Giles v. Kuennen, 50 Ill. App. 2d 389, 200 N.E.2d 143.\"\nAlso see Phelan v. Santelli (1975), 30 Ill. App. 3d 657, and Huff v. Illinois Central R.R. Co. (1972), 4 Ill. App. 3d 113.\nIn this circumstance it was clearly an abuse of discretion for the court to refuse to allow the doctor to testify.\nIt also appears the plaintiffs attorney became frustrated when the court refused to allow the doctor to testify and as a result failed to call his remaining witness. We think that as a ward of the court the plaintiff should have been protected even against the failure of her trial lawyer to proceed with his case after the adverse ruling.\nThe defendant asserts the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed because the plaintiff failed to specifically attack the finding of the jury on the special interrogatory in his post-trial motion. She relies on the cases of Huff v. Illinois Central R.R. Co. (1972), 4 Ill. App. 3d 113, and Quagliano v. Johnson (1968), 100 Ill. App. 2d 444. Those cases are not in point here where the judgment was attacked based upon a trial error rather than upon the manifest weight of the evidence where the special interrogatory is deemed to be controlling.\nFrom the totality of the record we believe the minor plaintiff was not given a full and complete or fair trial; and therefore, we set aside the general verdict and special interrogatory and reverse for a new trial.\nFor these reasons, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.\nReversed and remanded for new trial.\nJOHNSON, P. J., and BURMAN, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE DIERINGER" } ], "attorneys": [ "Marshall I. Teichner, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Parrillo, Bresler, Weiss & Moss, of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "VERONICA BLAKELY, a Minor, by Milton Blakely, her Father and Next Friend, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHIRLEY JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellee.\nFirst District (4th Division)\nNo. 61598\nOpinion filed February 25, 1976.\nRehearing denied April 27, 1976.\nMarshall I. Teichner, of Chicago, for appellant.\nParrillo, Bresler, Weiss & Moss, of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0112-01", "first_page_order": 140, "last_page_order": 144 }