{
  "id": 3384201,
  "name": "FOLLADORI INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SIMS MOTOR TRANSPORT LINES, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Folladori Industries, Inc. v. Sims Motor Transport Lines, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1977-07-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 76-1306",
  "first_page": "171",
  "last_page": "173",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "51 Ill. App. 3d 171"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "404 F. Supp. 492",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        3837201
      ],
      "year": 1953,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/404/0492-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "355 F.2d 705",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        842194
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/355/0705-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 N.E.2d 549",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 Ohio St. 47",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ohio St.",
      "case_ids": [
        1054285
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ohio-st/155/0047-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 U.S.C. \u00a720",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "U.S.C.",
      "year": 1970,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(11)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ohio Rev. Code Ann. \u00a72305.07",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ohio Rev. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1953,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ohio Rev. Code Ann. \u00a72305.10",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ohio Rev. Code Ann.",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1953,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 295,
    "char_count": 4069,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.875,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3553782479210178
    },
    "sha256": "c8f83e077aa532afa3a5e5b35ab436db393ddb8bd462dc1f5dbf2cf8f276f8da",
    "simhash": "1:1873b3a9ac601819",
    "word_count": 649
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:38:54.645684+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "FOLLADORI INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SIMS MOTOR TRANSPORT LINES, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE BUA\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff, Folladori Industries, Inc., appeals from an order entered March 19, 1975, in the Circuit Court of Cook County striking and dismissing its complaint. The issue on review is whether plaintiff\u2019s cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations of the State of Ohio (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. \u00a72305.10 (1953)). The facts follow.\nOn August 25, 1972, plaintiff, an interstate common carrier, received a shipment of goods on consignment from Bar Steel Co. of Detroit, Michigan, for delivery to the Apollo Steel Supply Co., Chicago, Illinois. The following day, while en route to Chicago, plaintiff\u2019s truck was involved in a collision with a truck operated by Robert Crouch, an \u25a0 employee of the Sims Motor Transport Lines, Inc. (defendants). The collision occurred on U.S. 23 in Lucas County, Ohio.\nOn September 8,1972, plaintiff paid its consignee, Apollo Steel, the sum of $3,322.43 for damage to the goods.\nSubsequently, on September 3, 1974, plaintiff filed suit against the defendants to recover the sum paid to the consignee. On October 2,1974, defendants filed their motions to strike and dismiss the complaint on the grounds that, under Ohio law, the plaintiff\u2019s cause of action was barred by a two-year statute of limitations.\nOn March 19,1975, following a hearing, the court sustained defendants\u2019 motion and dismissed the complaint on the ground that the two year statute of limitations had expired.\nThe Ohio statute governing limitation of actions in personal injury and property damage cases (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. \u00a72305.10 (1953)) states in pertinent part as follows: \u201cAn action for bodily injury or injuring personal property shall be brought within two years after the cause thereof arose.\u201d Manifestly, the cause of action for injury to personal property accrues at the time of the injury, and the two-year statute of limitations prescribed therefor will commence to run at that time (34 O. Jur. 2d Limitation of Actions \u00a766). Applying this law to the facts, plaintiff\u2019s cause of action, filed September 3,1974, was clearly barred by the two-year statute of limitations.\nPlaintiff contends, however, that Ohio Rev. Code Ann. \u00a72305.10 (1953) does not control. Plaintiff argues that the instant action is for indemnification arising under an implied contract as set forth in its complaint. As such, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. \u00a72305.07 (1953), which provides a six-year statute of limitations in actions arising out of unwritten contracts is controlling. In the alternative, plaintiff theorizes that their liability to the consignee is based upon the Carmack Amendment of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. \u00a720(11) (1970)) and therefor the statute of limitations should commence to run on September 8,1972, the date payment was made to the consignee. We find no merit in either of these arguments.\nThe two-year statute of limitations in Ohio Rev. Code. Ann. \u00a72305.10 (1953) cannot be avoided by couching a complaint in terms of a breach of contract action rather than a tort. If the action seeks to recover for injury to personal property, regardless of the terminology used in the complaint, the two-year statute is applicable. (Andrianos v. Traction Company (1951), 155 Ohio St. 47, 97 N.E.2d 549; Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co. (6th Cir. 1966), 355 F.2d 705; Underwriters at Lloyd\u2019s v. Peerless Storage Co. (S.D. Ohio 1975), 404 F. Supp. 492.) The instant action is not one for indemnification, it is one for recovery for injury to personal property, and as such it must come within the two-year limitation of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. \u00a72305.10 (1953).\nFor the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nGOLDBERG, P. J., and O\u2019CONNOR, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE BUA"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Raymond P. Carroll, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Goldgehn, Leonardo, Goldgehn & Isaacson, of Chicago, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FOLLADORI INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SIMS MOTOR TRANSPORT LINES, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 76-1306\nOpinion filed July 25, 1977.\nRaymond P. Carroll, of Chicago, for appellant.\nGoldgehn, Leonardo, Goldgehn & Isaacson, of Chicago, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0171-01",
  "first_page_order": 193,
  "last_page_order": 195
}