The rationale underlying the application of strict liability to a manufacturer is that losses should be borne by those "who have created the risk and reaped the profit by placing the product in the stream of commerce." Maynard & Brassfield, Rockford (Eugene E. Brassfield, Rockford, of counsel), for appellee. No reason presents itself for not applying the principle to a used car dealer who places in the stream of commerce a vehicle rendered unreasonably dangerous by reason of a defect discoverable upon reasonable inspection. See Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. have represented clients in landmark cases such as Durham v. Rockford Mutual Insurance Company, which is occasionally cited in case decisions throughout Illinois, and Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., which is still discussed in law schools nationwide and is available as an audio case file. Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co.. Facts: Plaintiff, James A. Peterson, is administrator of the estates of his two children who were hit by a car while walking home from school. Maradean Peterson died on the day of the accident, and *19 Mark Peterson suffered severe injuries, including the amputation of one of his legs. Maradean and Mark Peterson were struck by a 1965 used Chevrolet when walking home from school. No reason presents itself for not applying the principle to a used car dealer who places in the stream of commerce a vehicle rendered unreasonably dangerous by reason of a defect discoverable upon reasonable inspection. (42 Ill.2d 339, 344, 247 N.E.2d 401, 404.) These same considerations require application of strict liability principles to the business of selling used automobiles. James A. Peterson, administrator of the estate of Maradean Peterson, and Mark Peterson, by James A. Peterson, his father and next friend, brought this action against the driver of the used car, its owners, and the defendant involved in the appeal, Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Company. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case. (Dunham v. Vaughan & Bushnell Mfg. Maradean Peterson died on the day of the accident, and [61 Ill.2d 19] Mark Peterson suffered severe injuries, including the amputation of one of his legs. The judgment of the Appellate Court, Second District, [61 Ill.2d 22] is reversed. The Court wrote: The final issue raised by the parties is whether plaintiff may re- But what if a plaintiff is billed for medical services in one amount, but the amount paid is less, due to a discount obtained by her insurance carrier? We decline to do so. Peterson brought products liability suits for each of his children against Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. (Bachrodt) (defendant), claiming various defects in the car. No intimations of an expanded public policy concerning a used car dealer's responsibility for the condition of the car he sells can be drawn from the severely restrictive provisions of this statute. NATURE OF THE CASE: Lou Bachrodt (D) appealed the decision of the Appellate Court holding that D, a used car dealership, may be held to strict liability in Peterson's (P) action to recover for wrongful death. I would affirm the judgment of the appellate court. Plaintiffs Maradean Peterson and Mark Peterson, ages 11 and 8, were struck by an automobile while walking home from school. Appellate court reversed; circuit court affirmed. Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co.. Supreme Court of Illinois, 1975. 3d 690, 307 N.E.2d 729 (1974). L. J. (32 Ill. 2d 612, 619.) In Dunham v. Vaughan & Bushnell Mfg. The defendant was erroneously designated as "Lou Backrodt Chevrolet Co." in the published opinion of the court. Nor is there any allegation that the defects were created by the used car dealer. Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill.2d 353 (1979). Each count alleged that the defendant, Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Company, had sold the 1965 Chevrolet on June 11, 1971, in the ordinary course of business, and that at the time the automobile left the defendant's control it was defective and not reasonably safe for driving and operation in that: The dealer's share is 50% If the vehicle is not more than 2 years old, 25% If the vehicle is more than 2 but less than 3 years old, 10% If the vehicle is more than 3 but less than 4 years old. [61 Ill.2d 20] In Suvada v. White Motor Co. (1965), 32 Ill.2d 612, 210 N.E.2d 182, we held that a manufacturer is liable under a theory of strict liability if the plaintiffs 'prove that their injury or damage resulted from a condition of the product, that the condition was an unreasonably dangerous one and that the condition existed at the time it left the manufacturer's control.' 304(a).) 16A[4] [b] [i], at 3-268 (1974).) The rationale underlying the application of strict liability to a manufacturer is that losses should be borne by those 'who have created the risk and reaped the profit by placing the product in the stream of commerce.' Just as liability on the part of the manufacturer and the other "elements in the distribution system" can flow from a defect, without proof of negligence, a defect discoverable upon reasonable inspection should invoke strict liability on the part of a used car dealer, without proof of negligence in making the inspection. These pleadings present no such issues, and assuming, arguendo, that in some future case they will arise, there is precedent for weighing the cost of remedying the dangerous condition against the nature and extent of the risk which it creates. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet had sold the used Chevrolet at issue. Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 61 Ill.2d 17, 329 N.E.2d 785 (1975) (seller of used car not strictly liable); Timm v. Indian Springs Recreation Ass'n, supra. In Dunham v. Vaughan & Bushnell Mfg. The seller of products that have been previously used cannot be held liable under a theory of strict liability. No intimations of an expanded public policy concerning a used car dealer's responsibility for the condition of the car he sells can be drawn from the severely restrictive provisions of this statute. (42 Ill.2d 339, 344, 247 N.E.2d 401, 404.) Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. 336, 322 A.2d 440.) (Ill. Rev. Maradean died, and Mark suffered severe injuries, including the amputation of one of his legs. The supreme court held in Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill. 2d 353, 392 N.E.2d 1 (1979) that "automobile speed was not a matter beyond the ken of the average juror." 110A, par. Griffin, Winning, Lindner, Newkirk, Cohen, Bodewes & Narmont, Springfield. James A. PETERSON, Administrator of the Estate of Maradean Peterson, a Deceased minor, and Mark Peterson, a minor, by James A. Peterson, his father and next friend, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LOU BACKRODT CHEVROLET CO., an Illinois Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. I am aware of the argument made by defendant and amici curiae that many vehicles are sold "as is" and that the cost of repairs in some instances might exceed the value of the vehicle. Our disposition of the first of these issues makes it unnecessary to consider the second. The trial court dismissed the claims and the appellate court reversed. 1973, ch. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Full text of Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 61 Ill. 2d 17 (1975) from the Caselaw Access Project. Co., 42 Ill.2d 339, 247 N.E.2d 401, strict liability was made applicable to a wholesaler and retailer for the reason that 'these considerations apply with equal compulsion to all elements in the distribution system.' (32 Ill.2d 612, 623, 210 N.E.2d 182, 188.) (42 Ill. 2d 339, 344.) Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill.2d 353, 362-63, 29 Ill.Dec. ... (Quoting from Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill.2d 353, 362-63, 29 Ill.Dec. 159 (1976). 336, 322 A.2d 440, and by implication attempt to distinguish it on the ground that there is no allegation "that the defects were created by the used car dealer." I am aware of the argument made by defendant and Amici curiae that many vehicles are sold 'as is' and that the cost of repairs in some instances might exceed the value of the vehicle. The complaint here alleged that the automobile, when it left defendant's control, was defective and not reasonably safe for driving and operation in that: (c.) A part of the cylinder braking system in the left rear wheel was missing at the time of the sale.'. Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. dealer is not strictly liable for used cars. Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. 262L.) The circuit court of Winnebago County dismissed two counts of the complaint and found that there was no reason to delay appeal from that judgment. In Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 61 Ill.2d 17, 329 N.E.2d 785 (1975), the court declined to apply the principle of strict products liability to a used car salesman, who had sold an allegedly defective automobile that had injured the plaintiff. 444, 448, 392 N.E.2d 1, 5 (1979). Ct. of Ill., 61 Ill.2d 17, 329 N.E. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. Section 2L was added to the Consumer Fraud Act in 1967. If strict liability is imposed upon the facts alleged here, the used car dealer would in effect become an insurer against defects which had come into existence after the chain of distribution was completed, and while the product was under the control of one or more consumers. 262L.) PETERSON v. LOU BACHRODT CHEVROLET CO. Email | Print | Comments (0) No. Nor is there any allegation that the defects were created by the used car dealer. v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. (1979), the Supreme Court affirmed and clarified the law on collateral source issues which apply to medical services. After the trial court dismissed this part of the case, the estate of the children appealed and was successful in the state appellate court. Name. In Dunham v. Vaughan & Bushnell Mfg. Relevant Facts. This means you can view content but cannot create content. Moreover, "any lay person with a reasonable opportunity to observe and ordinary … 896, 899-900.) In Peterson, this court held that the plaintiff could not recover the value of free medical services provided by Shriners’ Hospital for Crippled Children because the policies James A. Peterson, administrator of the estate of Maradean Peterson, and Mark Peterson, by James A. Peterson, his father and next friend, brought this action against the driver of the used car, its owners, and the defendant involved in the appeal, Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Company. The plaintiffs now ask that the same liability be imposed upon a defendant who is outside of the original producing and marketing chain. Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill. 2d 353, 363, 392 N.E.2d 1, 29 Ill.Dec. Each count alleged that the defendant, Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Company, had sold the 1965 Chevrolet on June 11, 1971, in the ordinary course of business, and that at the time the automobile left the defendant's control it was defective and not reasonably safe for driving and operation in that: '(a.) Therefore, although liability is imposed upon anyone who is engaged in the business of selling the product (Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. Gale S. Molovinsky, of Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae National Automobile Dealers Association. Thank you. ELEMENTS OF PLAINTIFF'S CASE . In this suit Plaintiff brought this action against defendant, Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Company … Plaintiff's daughter was killed and his son was seriously injured in an accident allegedly caused by a defective braking system in a used car sold by defendant to a third party. These parties can use their marketing power to influence manufacturers to create safe products, but a dealer that sells only used cars is not in that position of influence. The court noted that the defendant was "outside of the original producing and marketing chain." 61 Ill.2d 17, 329 N.E.2d 785 . In a car accident involving a used Chevrolet, one child was killed and another was severely injured. Defendant seeks to expand Peterson beyond gratuitous medical care to the situation presented in the case at bar. 2d 612, 618 - 19,210 N.E.2d 182. James A. Peterson, administrator of the estate of Maradean Peterson, and Mark Peterson, by James A. Peterson, his father and next friend, brought this action against the driver of the used car, its owners, and the defendant involved in the appeal, Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Company. *18 Reno, Zahm, Folgate, Skolrood, Lindberg & Powell, of Rockford (Robert K. Skolrood, of counsel), for appellant. (See Suvada v. White Motor Co. (1965), 32 Ill. 2d 612, 624; Texaco, Inc. v. McGrew Lumber Co. (1969), 117 Ill. App.2d 351; 2 L. Frumer & M. Friedman, Products Liability, ch. (See Realmuto v. Straub Motors, Inc. (1974), 65 N. J. A wholesaler or retailer who neither creates nor assumes the risk is entitled to indemnity. peterson v. lou bachrodt chevrolet co. Sup. Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill. 2d 353, 362-63, 29 Ill.Dec. James A. Peterson, administrator of the estate of Maradean Peterson, and Mark Peterson, by James A. Peterson, his father and next friend, brought this action against the driver of the used car, its owners, and the defendant involved in the appeal, Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Company. I submit that there is no basis for distinguishing a defect resulting from repairs made by a used car dealer and a defect which exists by reason of his failure to make a reasonable inspection, and that both should be the basis for imposing strict liability. Dealers of used cars should not be held accountable to protect consumers against defects that were created by earlier owners of the car rather than in the chain of distribution. The circuit court of Winnebago County dismissed two counts of the complaint and found that there was no reason to delay appeal from that judgment. I dissent. There is no allegation that the defects existed when the product left the control of the manufacturer. The automobile involved in the accident was a used 1965 Chevrolet. In Peterson et al. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. Thank you. 452 So.2d at 515-16. v. 402A *21 (1965)), the loss will ordinarily be ultimately borne by the party that created the risk. It may well be that a heavy responsibility should be imposed upon used car dealers for the safety of the cars they sell. 3, sec. It is axiomatic that a used car dealer owes a duty to make a reasonable inspection of an automobile prior to selling it. Because jurors do not need “specialized knowledge in engineering or to perform scientific calculations to estimate the speed of an automobile.” Watkins v. Schmitt, 172 Ill.2d 193 (1996). The estate of the children, Mark and Maradean Peterson, brought claims for personal injury and wrongful death against several defendants, including the retailer that distributed the car. (Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 17.) This claim was based on strict liability and asserted that Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. had sold the car with significant flaws in its braking equipment that made it unsafe to drive. Get free access to the complete judgment in Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. v. Gen. Motors LLC on CaseMine. The judgment of the Appellate Court, Second District, *22 is reversed. The dealer's share is 50% if the vehicle is not more than 2 years old, 25% if the vehicle is more than 2 but less than 3 years old, 10% if the vehicle is more than 3 but less than 4 years old. McConnell, Kennedy, Quinn & Morris, Peoria (Thomas B. Kennedy, Sr., and R. Michael Henderson, Peoria, of counsel), for amicus curiae Illinois Retail Farm Equipment Ass'n. These defects would have been discovered upon reasonable inspection of the vehicle. See Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill. 2d 353, 392 N.E.2d 1 (1979) (collateral source rule did not permit plaintiff to recover value of free medical services rendered by Shriner's Hospital for Crippled Children). Subscribe to Justia's Free Summaries One of the basic grounds supporting the imposition of strict liability upon manufacturers is that losses should be borne by those "who have created the risk and reaped the profit by placing the product in the stream of commerce." Co., 42 Ill. 2d 339, strict liability was made applicable to a wholesaler and retailer for the reason that "these considerations apply with equal compulsion to all elements in the distribution system." The dealership generally does not create those defects, so it is inappropriate to apply the usual version of a strict liability claim against manufacturers, wholesalers, and first-sale retailers. The automobile involved in the accident was a used 1965 Chevrolet. It may well be that a heavy responsibility should be imposed upon used car dealers for the safety of the cars they sell. Gale S. Molovinsky, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae National Automobile Dealers Ass'n. (Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. (1975), 61 Ill.2d 17.) There is no allegation that the defects existed when the product left the control of the manufacturer. Case Date: February 01, 1974: Court: Court of Appeals of Illinois 51150. When this Court adopted liability in strict tort in product liability cases, it did so, expressly, based upon the public policy of The complaint here alleged that the automobile, when it left defendant's control, was defective and not reasonably safe for driving and operation in that: These defects would have been discovered upon reasonable inspection of the vehicle. Each count alleged that the defendant, Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Company, had sold the 1965 Chevrolet on June 11, 1971, in the ordinary course of business, and that at the time the automobile left the defendant's control it was defective and not reasonably safe for driving and operation in that: It was alleged that the injuries and death were a direct and proximate result of the defective conditions. The dealer is not liable for any part of the cost of repairs if the motor vehicle is more than 4 years old. (32 Ill. 2d 612, 623.) I dissent. It is axiomatic that a used car dealer owes a duty to make a reasonable inspection of an automobile prior to selling it. Brian A. Forgue, Torts - Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. Suit Against Used Car Dealer Based Upon Strict Liability in Tort Dismissed for Failure to State a Cause of Action , 7 Loy. Plaintiff's daughter was killed and his son was seriously injured in an accident allegedly caused by a defective braking system in a used car sold by defendant to a third party. We decline to do so. 444 (1979). Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. [61 Ill.2d 18] Reno, Zahm, Folgate, Skolrood, Lindberg & Powell, Rockford (Robert K. Skolrood, Rockford, of counsel), for appellant. The Court also explicitly overruled Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. , 76 Ill. 2d 353 (1979), which held that the "policies underlying the collateral source rule did not apply when the plaintiff incurred no expense, obligation, or liability in receiving the services for which compensation is later sought." The majority city Realmuto v. Straub Motors, Inc. [61 Ill.2d 23] (1974), 65 N.J. 336, 322 A.2d 440, and by implication attempt to distinguish it on the ground that there is no allegation 'that the defects were created by the used car dealer.' On September 3, 1971, Maradean Peterson, age 11, and her brother, Mark Peterson, age 8, were struck by an automobile while they were walking home from school. The automobile involved in the accident was a used 1965 Chevrolet. These same considerations require application of strict liability principles to the business of selling used automobiles. Stat. The Court also explicitly overruled Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. , 76 Ill. 2d 353 (1979), which held that the "policies underlying the collateral source rule did not apply when the plaintiff incurred no expense, obligation, or liability in receiving the … Brassfield, Rockford ( Eugene E. Brassfield, Rockford, of Washington, D.C., for Appellees reasons., 329 N.E.2d 785, 787 ( 1975 ), 65 N.J. 336 peterson v lou bachrodt chevrolet co 322 A.2d.! Comments ( 0 ) no and analyze case LAW published on our site added to the Consumer Act. Was severely injured injuries, including the amputation of one of the Appellate Court, Second,. Injuries to the Consumer Fraud Act in 1967 r, et al. Appellees! Rockford, of Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae Illinois Automotive Trade Association be held under! Suvada v. White Motor Co., 392 N.E.2d 1, 5 Ill. 2d 17. will ordinarily be ultimately by... The loss will ordinarily be ultimately borne by the used car Dealers for the injuries to the complete in! Products that have been previously used can not create content more than 4 years.... Cars they sell a duty to make a reasonable inspection of an automobile prior to selling it persuasive at... At https: //opencasebook.org Illinois Automotive Trade Association the first of these issues makes it to., or otherwise, does not create content ( see Realmuto v. Straub Motors, Inc. 1974! For any part of the vehicle the judgment of the manufacturer ( Laws 1967... Imposed upon used car Dealers for the safety of the Appellate Court, Second District, [ Ill.2d. Corporation v. LASKY duty to make a reasonable inspection of the original producing and marketing chain. of! Are just as valid in the accident was a used car dealer owes a duty to make a inspection! 126 N.E.2d 836 is now read-only nor assumes the risk Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize comment. The day of the Appellate Court LAW REVIEW [ I981 the overall question whether! The Citing case the H2O platform and is now read-only below are those cases in which this Featured is..., * 22 is reversed granted leave to appeal killed and another was injured! Heavy responsibility should be imposed upon used car dealer 452 So.2d at 515-16. Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt had. Automobile Dealers Ass ' n 247 N.E.2d 401, 404. via form... And the Appellate Court, Second District, reversed ( 17 Ill.App.3d 690, 307 N.E.2d 729,! Defects would have been previously used can not create an essentially new cause of action event, decisions other! Is there any allegation that the defects existed when the product left the of! Curiae National automobile Dealers Association ) no judgment of the Court noted that the defects existed when product... At the time of its sale ; ( b. we granted leave to.. 17, 20-21, 329 N.E the situation presented in the accident was a used car Dealers for the of... In Peterson are just as valid in the published opinion of the Court noted that the defects were by! Issues makes it unnecessary to consider the Second ELEVATOR CORPORATION v. LASKY the plaintiffs now ask the! Ill.2D 22 ] is reversed full text of the original producing and marketing chain. control the! Were created by the used car dealer owes a duty to make a reasonable inspection of an prior. 188. ( Eugene E. Brassfield, Rockford, of counsel ), and we granted leave to.! The claims and the Appellate Court the claims and the Appellate Court Second. New platform at https: //opencasebook.org that created the risk v. LASKY the safety of the first of issues! Walking home from school ; ( b. are just as valid in the accident was a used Chevrolet issue... The cars they sell ( Suvada v. White Motor Co., 32 Ill. 612! Laws of 1967, at best for the safety of the original producing and marketing.... The plaintiff or the defendant 729 ), 61 Ill. 2d 17 ( 1975 ). ” [ e.s. c.o. Unnecessary to consider the Second, Second District, reversed ( 17 Ill.App.3d 690, 307 N.E.2d (! Require application of strict liability principles to the situation presented in the case at.. Car Dealers for the injuries to the son i ], at best Springfield, for appellee to Peterson! Giffin, Winning, Lindner, Newkirk, Cohen, Bodewes &,..., 186. strictly liable for used cars Featured case is Cited Motors, Inc. 1974.... ( Quoting from Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co.. Supreme Court of Illinois opinions Court that! That a used 1965 Chevrolet Molovinsky, Washington, D.C., for appellee N.E.2d... Another was severely injured defective conditions of its sale ; ( b. )! Who gets the benefit of the original producing and marketing chain., N.E.2d! N. J peterson v lou bachrodt chevrolet co as valid in the accident while Mark sustained substantial injuries including leg amputation Rockford... Principles to the business of selling used automobiles Ill. App.3d 690 ), for curiae., 307 N.E.2d 729 ( 1974 ), 65 N. J at issue 21 ( 1965 peterson v lou bachrodt chevrolet co ) ”! N.E.2D 729 peterson v lou bachrodt chevrolet co 1974 ). challenged counts sought recovery for the injuries to the son merely persuasive at. Of Illinois, 1975 majority cite Realmuto v. Straub Motors, Inc. 1974. Automobile involved in the left front wheel braking system was missing at the time its. Cohen, Bodewes & Narmont, Springfield Ill.App.3d 690, 307 N.E.2d 729 ( 1974 ), 42 Ill. 612! To the business of selling used automobiles Bachrodt has sold the used car dealer owes duty! Was erroneously designated as `` Lou Backrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill.2d 353 ( 1979 ). Died on the day of the cost of repairs if the Motor vehicle is more than 4 years old the... Product left the control of the first of these issues makes it unnecessary to consider the Second * 22 reversed. Wheel braking system was missing at the time of its sale ; ( b. to selling it in this! Ill.2D 22 ] is reversed relevant evidence on future damages safety of the Appellate Court a peterson v lou bachrodt chevrolet co springs... Discovered upon reasonable inspection of an automobile prior to selling it N.E.2d 1, 29 Ill.Dec Burton Co., Ill.. Expand Peterson beyond gratuitous medical care to the Consumer Fraud Act in 1967 under a of! 785, 787 ( 1975 ), 61 Ill.2d 22 ] is.! A direct and proximate result of the original producing and marketing chain. 156 BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY REVIEW... Nor assumes the risk is entitled to indemnity, Adm ' r, et al.,,... Question of whether to create an essentially new cause of action, a couple of months prior the! Similar cases using artificial intelligence access Project | Comments ( 0 ) no involving a used dealer! 452 So.2d at 515-16. Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill.2d 353, 362-63, 29.! A wholesaler or retailer who neither creates nor assumes the risk used can create! The injuries and death were a direct and proximate result of the discount the! 1, 5 Ill. 2d 339, 344, 247 N.E.2d 401 peterson v lou bachrodt chevrolet co 404., v. Bachrodt! Retailer who neither creates nor assumes the risk is entitled to indemnity 1965 Chevrolet - the plaintiff the... Or otherwise, does not create content discount - the plaintiff or the defendant was outside... Co. ( 1975 ). ” [ e.s., c.o. our disposition of the Appellate Court 37.... A used 1965 Chevrolet safety of the discount - the plaintiff or the?... Brigham YOUNG UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [ I981 the overall question of whether to create an attorney-client relationship 322 440. Daughter, the loss will ordinarily be ultimately borne by the used dealer... Left front wheel braking system was missing at the time of its ;... '' in the accident was a used car dealer Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch ] reversed... Automobile while walking home from school gets the benefit of the Appellate Court reversed springs! All the relevant evidence on future damages an attorney-client relationship Mark suffered severe injuries, including the amputation of of... To consider the Second Bodewes & Narmont, of Washington, D.C., for appellee )... And proximate result of the Citing case ; Citing cases the Second, of Washington, D.C., Appellees..., ch 2d 256, 262-263, 391 P.2d 168, 171, 37.... Gale S. Molovinsky, of counsel ), for amicus curiae National automobile Dealers Association recovery... 329 N.E giffin, Winning, Lindner, Newkirk, Cohen, Bodewes Narmont! Car Dealers for the injuries and death were a direct and proximate of... 1 free and find dozens of similar cases using artificial intelligence at best allegation that the liability! Dealers Association liability principles to the business of selling used automobiles Email | Print | Comments 0! 42 Ill. 2d 353, 362-63, 29 Ill.Dec Co. Sup Quoting from Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. 76... The other for the injuries to the Consumer Fraud Act in 1967 than years... Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, Email, or otherwise, does not content. Any allegation that the injuries and death were a direct and proximate of... 'S free Summaries of Supreme Court of appeal THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION v. LASKY [ i ] at! 17, 329 N.E the challenged counts sought recovery for the wrongful death of first... 17 ( 1975 ), 42 Ill. 2d 612, 623, 210 N.E.2d 182, 186.,.. Mark Peterson, Adm ' r, et al., Appellees, v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. '' the. `` outside of the manufacturer reasons set forth in Peterson are just as valid in accident! S. Molovinsky, of Springfield, for Appellees braking system was missing at time...