Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Commentary : In Their Opinion : Lawyer & Attorney Michael E. Rigney : Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm

REYNOLDS v. CB SPORTS BAR (October 22, 2010)

Loretta Reynolds (according to her complaint) had car trouble while leaving Jerzey’s Sports Bar in O’Fallon, Illinois. The bartender told her no cabs were available and suggested she get a ride from another patron. Two other patrons agreed to give her a ride but first bought her several drinks (and possibly drugged her). Reynolds realized while in their car that they were not driving her to her hotel but were intent on sexually assaulting her. She managed to escape but, in the process, was hit by a car and severely injured. She brought suit against the two other patrons and CB Sports, the establishment’s owner. She alleged alternatively that the bartender “knew or should have known” that the patrons were getting her drunk in order to sexually assault her or that the bar and bartender intentionally aided the patrons in doing so. Judge Gilbert (S.D. Ill.) dismissed the complaint against CB Sports, finding no duty under the circumstances. Reynolds appealed. While her appeal was pending, the court entered a default judgment against one of the individual defendants and held a hearing on damages. At the hearing, Reynolds presented additional facts with respect to the night in question – including that two different bartenders refused her request for a phone book, told her that no taxis were available, and vouched for the character of the two other patrons.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Ripple (dissenting), and Kanne reversed and remanded. The Court first considered the significance of the testimony at the damages hearing. Prior to Iqbal and Twombly, a plaintiff was free to offer an unsubstantiated version of the events on appeal in support of its position as long as it was consistent with the complaint. The Court concluded that Iqbal and Twombly raised the bar with respect to the content of the complaint but did not limit a plaintiff’s ability to argue facts outside the complaint to show that a complaint should not have been dismissed. Next, to the extent the complaint alleged an intentional tort, the Court noted that CB Sports could not be liable. It turned to the negligence claim and, specifically, the existence of a duty. Under Illinois law, the general rule is that a business owner is liable for foreseeable criminal attacks while an invitee is on the premises. Generally, liability does not attach for an attack off the premises. The Court noted, however, that Illinois courts have recognized some exceptions to the off-premises rule. Illinois courts have extended liability to off-premises attacks In Shortall, Osborne, and Haupt – but in each case the attack took place just off the premises. Here, the attack was over a mile away. Nevertheless, it was the foreseeability of the attack that the courts considered in Shortall, Osborne, and Haupt. And here, taking the facts alleged as true, the attack was foreseeable. Foreseeability is not enough, however. The Court also considered the likelihood of the injury, the burden on the establishment owner, and the consequences of that burden. Here, the likelihood is high given the intentional scheme at play. The burden and consequences of imposing that duty are not high. The Court emphasized that this was not a burden to investigate – only a burden to protect when it was aware of an intent to injure. The Court was satisfied that Reynold’s allegations sufficiently pled a duty. Finally, the Court declined to find an absence of proximate cause as a matter of law and emphasized that it was not accepting Reynold’s “voluntary undertaking” theory of liability.

Judge Ripple dissented. Although he recognized the Illinois courts’ expansion of off-premises business invitee liability, he disagreed with the Court’s further extension of the principle. On the one hand, Reynold’s complaint alleges an intentional act. Judge Ripple would not extend negligence principles to the situation where the employee is a participant in the execution of the planned attack. As for the alternate allegation that the bartender “should have known,” Judge Ripple believed the burden imposed by the panel opinion on the establishment is too great. He saw no facts alleged in the complaint upon which to base a “should have known” conclusion. Either way, Judge Ripple thought the panel opinion extended Illinois law beyond where the Illinois Supreme Court would go.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

HUNTER v. AMIN (October 1, 2009)

Stanley Bell was sent to the St. Clair County Jail as a pretrial detainee. At the time, he was taking several medications, including an antidepressant and a sleep aid. The prison psychiatrist, Dr. Amin, met with Bell about a week later. Bell refused to speak with Amin with a jail officer present. Amin refused to meet with Bell without a jail officer present, a practice that was also required by state regulations. Bell became agitated -- Amin told him his medication would be discontinued without the examination -- Bell became more agitated and belligerent. Amin discontinued all of Bell's medications and planned to meet with him the following week. Bell committed suicide two days later. Bell's sister, Elisha Hunter, brought a claim pursuant to § 1983 against Amin, the County, and others. She also bought medical malpractice claims. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of all the defendants. Hunter appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple and Sykes (dissenting) and District Judge Lawrence affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. The Court first considered the argument that the policy requiring the presence of a corrections officer was a violation of Dell's right to mental health treatment. In order for a municipality to be liable under these circumstances, its policy must violate constitutional rights. Here, the Court stated that the policy did not violate Bell's rights. Bell had a constitutional right to adequate mental health treatment but nothing in the County's policy affected that right. In fact, the Court noted that the fact that the communications would be privileged from disclosure supported their conclusion. With respect to the medical malpractice claim, however, the Court reversed. Although it is true that no physician duty arises if a patient refuses treatment, Bell did not refuse treatment -- he only refused to be examined. The Court found no evidence in the record supporting Amin's position that the examination was necessary in order for him to continue the prescription medications. The Court medical remanded the malpractice claim for further proceedings. Finally, given the affirmance on the only federal claim in the case, the Court instructed the district court to determine whether it should continue to exercise jurisdiction.

Judge Sykes dissented from the majority's reversal of the medical malpractice claim. Judge Sykes concluded that Bell's refusal to consent to the examination meant that Amin had no right to render any treatment. Amin testified that he needed the examination before any treatment. Judge Sykes noted the lack of support in the record for the majority's conclusion that the examination was required.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

AGUIRRE v. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (September 30, 2009)

Jose Aguirre was employed as a bricklayer by one of the subcontractors involved in the renovation of Chicago's Soldier Field. He was seriously injured when he fell off a scaffold. He brought this personal injury suit against the joint venture that was acting as general contractor for the project. The court first found that the general contractor had no duty to Aguirre and that Aguirre could not avail himself of res ipsa loquitur, in that the general contractor did not have exclusive control of the scaffold. It granted summary judgment to the defendants. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed on both grounds, concluding that the defendants assumed a duty and that exclusive control is not an element of res ipsa loquitur. On remand, the case was tried to a defense verdict. Aguirre appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Ripple and Kanne affirmed. The general rule, stated the Court, is that a general contractor is not liable to someone injured as a result of the negligence of a subcontractor. An exception applies, however, when the contractor either by law or contract is required to care for the safety of the subcontractor's employees. Here, the general contractor took active steps to ensure the safety of all employees on the project. The exception therefore applies. Having found a duty, the Court proceeded to address the issue of whether it was breached. The subcontractor itself assembled the scaffold hours before the accident. Although the general contractor imposed strict requirements for scaffolds and inspected them frequently, the Court concluded that it did not breach its duty by not inspecting every one before it was used. The accident was caused either by the negligence of Aguirre or the subcontractor. Finally, the Court addressed the fact that the scaffold was missing a middle railing, the presence of which might have prevented the injuries by giving Aguirre something to grab as he fell. The problem with that, said the Court, is that the middle railing is not designed for that purpose. To rely on the absence of a safety measure, the injury complained of must be one that the safety measure was designed to prevent.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

CAMP v. TNT LOGISTICS CORPORATION (January 14, 2009)

Lola Camp was a truck driver in the employ of Transport Leasing Company (“TLC”). TLC in turn provided her services to DeKeyser Express (“DeKeyser”), a transport company. One of DeKeyser’s customers was TNT Logistics Corporation (“TNT”). TNT provided transportation logistics services to shippers. In January 2003, TNT directed DeKeyser to pick up a shipment of automobile parts from Trelleborg YSH, Inc. (“Trelleborg”) for delivery to a Mitsubishi automobile plant. DeKeyser assigned the job to Camp. When Camp arrived and surveyed the shipment, consisting of three pallets of parts, she concluded that the only way to fit them onto the truck was to stack one of the pallets on top of one of the others. She was concerned that such a load might not be safe. She advised Trelleborg, DeKeyser and TNT of her concern. TNT personnel advised DeKeyser and Camp that it understood the risk. TNT advised Camp to go ahead with the shipment. TNT released Trelleborg and Camp of any liability for cargo damage. When Camp arrived at her destination, she opened the truck door. The pallet started to fall – she injured herself while trying to prevent the fall. Camp brought an action against TNT and Trelleborg for negligence. The court granted summary judgment to TNT and Trelleborg. Camp appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Manion and Sykes affirmed. The Court started with the elements of a negligence claim in Illinois – duty, breach of the duty, and an injury proximately caused by the breach. The Court found it necessary to discuss only the duty requirement. It understood Camp’s claim to be one for common-law negligence based on two alternate theories of duty – statutory and common-law. Camp alleged that the statutory duty claim arose from TNT’s and Trelleborg’s violation of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (“FMCSR”). The Court disagreed. It noted that the regulations applied only to “motor carriers.” It held that TNT was not a motor carrier (Camp conceded that Trelleborg was not.) The Court distinguished between a “motor carrier,” defined as a “person engaged in the transportation of goods,” and a “broker,” defined as one who “provid[es] . . . or arrang[es]” for transportation by motor carriers. Even though “transportation” includes “services related to” the movement of property, the Court determined that TNT’s activities were that of a broker and did not rise to the level of providing services relating to the transportation. Also with respect to the statutory duty claim, the Court held that Camp could not recover from TNT or Trelleborg for aiding and abetting the violation of FMCSR. Camp herself violated the FMCSR. Illinois law does not allow a plaintiff to recover from a defendant for adding or abetting the plaintiff’s own tortious conduct.

With respect to the common-law duty claim, the Court identified the factors under Illinois law that courts consider to determine the existence of a duty: a) reasonable foreseeability of an injury, b) likelihood of an injury, c) magnitude of the burden of protecting against the injury and d) the consequences of placing this burden on the defendant. The Court concluded that neither TNT nor Trelleborg owed a duty of care to Camp -- Camp was aware of the risk, a reasonable person would have avoided the danger, TNT and Trelleborg knew of no particular reason why Camp would be compelled to act otherwise, Camp was in a better position to avoid the injury, it would be a burden to impose the obligation to avoid the injury on TNT or Trelleborg, and placing the burden on TNT and Trelleborg would result in significant resources devoted to preventing the injury. Having found no duty, Camp cannot establish negligence.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link