David J. Baker

In Mittelman v. Witous, an associate attorney sued a partner at his law firm for slander per se and tortious interference with prospective business relations after the partner allegedly blamed him for missing a statute of limitations deadline in two cases, which contributed to the associate's dismissal from the firm. The circuit court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, but the appellate court reversed as to the claims against the partner. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court, holding that the second amended complaint sufficiently alleged malice to overcome the qualified privilege protecting the partner's statements and that the partner acted with a personal stake contrary to the firm's interests, using wrongful means that could support a tortious interference claim. The court emphasized that the factual allegations must be taken as true for purposes of reviewing the motion to dismiss.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Little v. Chicago Hoist & Body Co., plaintiff John Little sued the defendant truck owner and driver for personal injuries from a 1955 multi-vehicle collision in Illinois. The trial court allowed testimony about Little's 1960 suicide attempt and awarded him $35,000, but the appellate court reversed the damages portion, ruling the suicide evidence inadmissible. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that a long time had passed since the accident, no evidence showed Little suffered a mental condition preventing rational choice, and under established tort principles his deliberate act constituted an independent intervening cause that broke the chain of causation from the defendant's negligence. The court also upheld the liability verdict despite an improper question on cross-examination, as the jury was instructed to disregard it and similar evidence had already been introduced.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The Village of Lake Bluff sued abutting property owners and others for a declaratory judgment regarding rights to Lillian Dells Drive, a pleasure driveway dedicated to the village in 1909 by a private owner with conditions requiring maintenance and limiting use to pleasure purposes. The trial court found no breach of the dedication conditions except for the beach portion along Lake Michigan, which had been affected by erosion and never improved, and ordered the village to construct a usable drive there within six months or lose that segment to the abutting owners; it also enjoined the owners from interfering with the village's rights. On appeal by both sides, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the drive remained in reasonable repair for its intended non-automotive pleasure use, that the village's traffic regulations did not constitute a breach, and that the evidence supported requiring repair only of the beach segment to make the full drive usable. The court rejected claims of breach based on blocked access or automotive hazards, noting the dedication's conditions and the village's police powers.

property

In Welch v. Davis, a husband shot and killed his wife before committing suicide; their minor daughter, through the administrator of the wife's estate, sued the husband's executor for damages under the Wrongful Death Act based on the loss of support. The trial court and appellate court denied recovery, holding that common-law spousal immunity barred the underlying tort claim and thus the statutory wrongful death action. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the Wrongful Death Act incorporates common-law tort liability rules but not personal immunities such as spousal immunity, particularly where the action is brought by the wife's child against the husband's estate rather than directly between living spouses. The court reasoned that the historical justifications for spousal immunity—fictional unity of husband and wife and the wife's inability to hold separate property—had been eliminated by statute and did not apply to these parties or this independent right of recovery. The case was remanded with directions to enter judgment on the jury's verdict.

torts & liabilityfamily law

This case involves a dispute where Shaffner sued Pinchback to recover $1000, claiming it was a loan for a bookmaking business at horse races, while Pinchback argued it was a partnership contribution in the same venture. The trial court ruled for the defendant after finding the activity illegal, a decision affirmed by the appellate court and upheld here. The court reasoned that betting on horse races is prohibited gaming under Illinois law, contracts aiding such activity are void, and the parties were in pari delicto so the courts would not enforce recovery of funds placed in the unlawful enterprise.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory