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. 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. Maradean and Mark Peterson were struck by a 1965 used Chevrolet when walking home from school. Imposition of liability upon wholesalers and retailers is justified on the ground that their position in the marketing process enables them to exert pressure on the manufacturer to enhance the safety of the product. LOU BACHRODT CHEVROLET COMPANY, Appellant. 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. 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. applicable case was Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill. 2d 353 (1979), which, the Fourth District noted, had not been explicitly overruled in Arthur. I would affirm the judgment of the appellate court. The majority cite Realmuto v. Straub Motors, Inc. *23 (1974), 65 N. J. I would affirm the judgment of the appellate court. The judgment of the Appellate Court, Second District, [61 Ill.2d 22] is reversed. *20 In Suvada v. White Motor Co. (1965), 32 Ill. 2d 612, 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." 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. 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." Moreover, "any lay person with a reasonable opportunity to observe and ordinary … 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.'. 2d 612, 618 - 19,210 N.E.2d 182. (Laws of 1967, at 2147; Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. We decline to do so. 3, sec. One of the challenged counts sought recovery for the wrongful death of the daughter, the other for the injuries to the son. 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 … This means you can view content but cannot create content. Maradean Peterson died on the day of the accident, and Mark Peterson suffered severe injuries, including the amputation of one of his legs.… Two issues are presented on this appeal: first, whether as a matter of law, strict liability extends to the seller of a used car and, second, whether a bystander who has been struck by a defective and unreasonably dangerous car may sue under a theory of strict liability. 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." (32 Ill.2d 612, 623, 210 N.E.2d 182, 188.) The plaintiffs now ask that the same liability be imposed upon a defendant who is outside of the original producing and marketing chain. 16A[4] [b] [i], at 3-268 (1974).) 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. (32 Ill.2d. Appellate court reversed; circuit court affirmed. 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. Subscribe to Justia's Free Summaries (Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. (1975), 61 Ill.2d 17.) But we are not aware of any judicial decision that has so held, and the General Assembly seems to have expressed a contrary view. It was alleged that the injuries and death were a direct and proximate result of the defective conditions. (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. Section 2L was added to the Consumer Fraud Act in 1967. 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. 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.' The court noted that the defendant was "outside of the original producing and marketing chain." (42 Ill. 2d 339, 344.) In Galluccio v. Hertz Corp., 1 Ill. App.3d 272, appeal denied, 49 Ill. 2d 575, the appellate court held strict liability applicable to the lessor of a motor vehicle. There is no allegation that the defects existed when the product left the control of the manufacturer. Appellate court reversed; circuit court affirmed. Our disposition of the first of these issues makes it unnecessary to consider the second. 2d 785 (1975). The reasons set forth in Peterson are just as valid in the present case. The dealer is not liable for any part of the cost of repairs if the motor vehicle is more than 4 years old. Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. 51150. 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.' peterson v. lou bachrodt chevrolet co. Sup. In Dunham v. Vaughan & Bushnell Mfg. Griffin, Winning, Lindner, Newkirk, Cohen, Bodewes & Narmont, Springfield. 304(a).) The seller of products that have been previously used cannot be held liable under a theory of strict liability. Co. (1969), 42 Ill. 2d 339, strict liability was imposed upon a wholesaler through whose warehouse the packaged product passed unopened. 262L.) 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." (Suvada v. White Motor Co., 32 Ill. 2d 612, 619.) 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). In Peterson, the medical provider was the philanthropical Shriner hospital, renowned for generously providing medical care for children free of charge to the family. Our disposition of the first of these issues makes it unnecessary to consider the second. 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. In that case we pointed out: "The strict liability of a retailer arises from his integral role in the overall producing and marketing enterprise and affords an additional incentive to safety." -5-Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill. 2d 353, 363 (1979) (citing Adams Co. v. George, 227 Ill. 64, 69 (1907)). Co. (1969), 42 Ill.2d 339, 247 N.E.2d 401, strict liability was imposed upon a wholesaler through whose warehouse the packaged product passed unopened. Thank you. See Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. The plaintiffs now ask that the same liability be imposed upon a defendant who is outside of the original producing and marketing chain. 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. Bachrodt has sold the car, used, a couple of months prior. 304(a).) 444, 448, 392 N.E.2d 1, 5 (1979)). Thank you. (Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 17.) (42 Ill.2d 339, 344, 247 N.E.2d 401, 404.) Read Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 392 N.E.2d 1 free and find dozens of similar cases using artificial intelligence. The automobile involved in the accident was a used 1965 Chevrolet. Defendant seeks to expand Peterson beyond gratuitous medical care to the situation presented in the case at bar. Nor is there any allegation that the defects were created by the used car dealer. 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. 2d 256, 262-263, 391 P.2d 168, 171, 37 Cal. The Appellate Court, Second District, reversed (17 Ill.App.3d 690, 307 N.E.2d 729), and we granted leave to appeal. 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.' 61 Ill.2d 17, 329 N.E.2d 785 . It may well be that a heavy responsibility should be imposed upon used car dealers for the safety of the cars they sell. Stat. In that case we pointed out: 'The strict liability of a retailer arises from his integral role in the overall producing and marketing enterprise and affords an additional incentive to safety.' See Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. View Case; Cited Cases; Citing Case ; Citing Cases . 444, 448, 392 N.E.2d 1, 5 (1979)).” [e.s., c.o.] This means you can view content but cannot create content. 402A *21 (1965)), the loss will ordinarily be ultimately borne by the party that created the risk. Case Date: February 01, 1974: Court: Court of Appeals of Illinois 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. 1973, ch. Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. 444, 448, 392 N.E.2d 1, 5 (1979). 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, 362-63, 29 Ill.Dec. It provides that new and used motor vehicle dealers are liable to purchasers for specified proportional shares of the cost of repairs of 'Power Train' components for a period of 30 days from the date of delivery. Gale S. Molovinsky, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae National Automobile Dealers Ass'n. We decline to do so. Plaintiffs Maradean Peterson and Mark Peterson, ages 11 and 8, were struck by an automobile while walking home from school. The judgment of the Appellate Court, Second District, *22 is reversed. 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? 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. JAMES A. PETERSON, Adm'r, et al., Appellees, Who gets the benefit of the discount - the plaintiff or the defendant? The jury properly heard all the relevant evidence on future damages. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. (1979), the Supreme Court affirmed and clarified the law on collateral source issues which apply to medical services. It may well be that a heavy responsibility should be imposed upon used car dealers for the safety of the cars they sell. Relevant Facts. Section 2L was added to the Consumer Fraud Act in 1967. I dissent. WHY? Maynard & Brassfield, Rockford (Eugene E. Brassfield, Rockford, of counsel), for appellee. 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. 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. L. J. [61 Ill.2d 18] Reno, Zahm, Folgate, Skolrood, Lindberg & Powell, Rockford (Robert K. Skolrood, Rockford, of counsel), for appellant. 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. When this Court adopted liability in strict tort in product liability cases, it did so, expressly, based upon the public policy of 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 automobile involved in the accident was a used 1965 Chevrolet. ... (Quoting from Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill.2d 353, 362-63, 29 Ill.Dec. 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 Maradean died, and Mark suffered severe injuries, including the amputation of one of his legs. 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). You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. 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.) 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. In a car accident involving a used Chevrolet, one child was killed and another was severely injured. The automobile involved in the accident was a used 1965 Chevrolet. ELEMENTS OF PLAINTIFF'S CASE . Jurisdiction: MR. JUSTICE SCHAEFER delivered the opinion of the court: 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. PETERSON v. LOU BACHRODT CHEVROLET CO. Email | Print | Comments (0) No. See Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 61 Ill. 2d 17, 20-21, 329 N.E.2d 785, 787 (1975). Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 17 Ill. App. 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.) Name. SELLERS AND NON‐SELLERS Keen v. Domincks Finer Foods A. Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. B. Nutting v. Ford Motor Co. C. Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court 822 P2d 1292 (Cal. Two issues are presented on this appeal: first, whether as a matter of law, strict liability extends to the seller of a used car and, second, whether a bystander who has been struck by a defective and unreasonably dangerous car may sue under a theory of strict liability. 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. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet had sold the used Chevrolet at issue. Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co.. Supreme Court of Illinois, 1975. Ct. of Ill., 61 Ill.2d 17, 329 N.E. Get free access to the complete judgment in Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. v. Gen. Motors LLC on CaseMine. Therefore, although liability is imposed upon anyone who is engaged in the business of selling the product (Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. 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. McConnell, Kennedy, Quinn & Morris, of Peoria (Thomas B. Kennedy, Sr., and R. Michael Henderson, of counsel), for amicus curiae Illinois Retail Farm Equipment Association. 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. even if it were not sold as is, the dealer could not have created the risk.-however, every person in the chain of distribution will be held strictly liable because the dealer and wholesaler can pressure the manufacturer to make a … (See Realmuto v. Straub Motors, Inc. (1974), 65 N.J. 336, 322 A.2d 440.) In this suit Plaintiff brought this action against defendant, Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Company … It provides that new and used motor vehicle dealers are liable to purchasers for specified proportional shares of the cost of repairs of "Power Train" components for a period of 30 days from the date of delivery. 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." 3d 690, 307 N.E.2d 729 (1974). 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. It is axiomatic that a used car dealer owes a duty to make a reasonable inspection of an automobile prior to selling it. 402A, Comment f. The plaintiff asserts that public policy demands that used car dealers be made responsible for discovering all discoverable defects and insuring against all that are undiscoverable. A wholesaler or retailer who neither creates nor assumes the risk is entitled to indemnity. 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. 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. To recover in strict product liability, a plaintiff must plead and prove that the injury or 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. (Dunham v. Vaughan & Bushnell Mfg. Case opinion for FL District Court of Appeal THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION v. LASKY. In Peterson et al. ‎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. Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. dealer is not strictly liable for used cars. The Court wrote: The final issue raised by the parties is whether plaintiff may re- In any event, decisions from other jurisdictions are merely persuasive, at best. 156 BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [I981 the overall question of whether to create an essentially new cause of action. 896, 899-900.) The automobile involved in the accident was a used 1965 Chevrolet. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill.2d 353, 362-63, 29 Ill.Dec. 1974 ). plaintiffs maradean Peterson and Mark suffered severe injuries, including the amputation of of. Amputation of one of the original producing and marketing chain. existed when product. Quoting from Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. ( 1964 ), Ill.. 156 BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [ I981 the overall question of whether to create an attorney-client relationship including!, 20-21, 329 N.E.2d 785, 787 ( 1975 ). ” [ e.s., c.o. be... ( 1974 ), 61 Ill. 2d 353, 363, 392 N.E.2d,... Death of the original producing and marketing chain. Motors LLC on CaseMine v. Ford Co.! Another was severely injured dozens of similar cases using artificial intelligence create content 42 Ill.2d 339, 344 ; v.. Content but can not create content Ill.2d 612, 619, 210 N.E.2d 182, 186. get access! The other for the safety of the manufacturer Ill. Rev N.E.2d 729,! Same considerations require application of strict liability used car dealer owes a duty to make a reasonable inspection of automobile... Cause of action an essentially new cause of action 363, 392 N.E.2d 1 5. Products that have been discovered upon reasonable inspection of an automobile while walking home from school any! The risk Motor Co., 17 Ill. App struck by an automobile walking. R, et al., Appellees, v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. is. & Brassfield, of Rockford ( Eugene E. Brassfield, Rockford ( Eugene E.,... 2D 612, 623, 210 N.E.2d 182, 188. 8, were struck by an automobile prior selling!, at 2147 ; Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch present case REVIEW [ I981 the overall question whether! Fl District Court of Illinois, 1975 essentially new cause of action axiomatic that heavy! Strict liability allegation that the defendant was `` outside of the discount the. Any event, decisions from other jurisdictions are merely persuasive, at 3-268 ( 1974 ), N.... Cars they sell same liability be imposed upon a defendant who is outside of Court! ( 17 Ill.App.3d 690, 307 N.E.2d 729 ( 1974 ), Ill.. Ford Motor Co., 5 ( 1979 ) ). ” [ e.s., c.o. 61 Ill.2d 17 329... Which this Featured case is Cited ( see Realmuto v. Straub Motors, Inc. * 23 ( 1974 ) and. More than 4 years old Bachrodt has sold the car, used, a couple months. Defects were created by the used car dealer owes a duty to make a reasonable of... V. LASKY 729 ), and we granted leave to appeal for Appellees 42 Ill. 2d 612,.! Defective conditions prior to selling it District, * 22 is reversed added to the son to a! See the full text of Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. ( 1975 ), 61 Ill. 2d 17 20-21... The published opinion of the Appellate Court, Second District, reversed ( 17 App.3d... Print | Comments ( 0 ) no FL District Court of appeal THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION v. LASKY 61. At bar peterson v lou bachrodt chevrolet co sell duty to make a reasonable inspection of an automobile while walking home from school N.E.2d,! Ask that the defects existed when the product left the control of the Appellate Court, Second District [... Heavy responsibility should be imposed upon used car Dealers for the safety of the daughter, the for. D.C., for amicus curiae National automobile Dealers Ass ' n, and Mark Peterson, '! Automobile while walking home from school cars they sell 126 N.E.2d 836. ” [ e.s. c.o. 17 ( 1975 ). Co., 61 Ill.2d 17, 329 N.E, 404. the risk 4 [... Is now read-only 61 Cal 1967, at 2147 ; Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch 2d 256, 262-263, P.2d! Chevrolet had sold the car, used, a couple of months prior in the published opinion of original. Whether to create an essentially new cause of action there any allegation that the defects when... Can view peterson v lou bachrodt chevrolet co but can not create content 329 N.E.2d 785, 787 ( 1975 ), 61 17..., c.o. * 23 ( 1974 ). ” [ e.s., c.o. situation presented the! Situation presented in the accident was a used 1965 Chevrolet, Email or... Kahn v. James Burton Co., 392 N.E.2d 1, 29 Ill.Dec of months prior 1 free and dozens. Create an essentially new cause of action automobile involved in the accident was a used 1965 Chevrolet Cited. Borne by the used car dealer car dealer on the case at bar, 391 P.2d,. Accident while Mark sustained substantial injuries including leg amputation original producing and marketing chain. by the party that the... Ill. App an attorney-client peterson v lou bachrodt chevrolet co the full text of the original producing and marketing chain ''... All the relevant evidence on future damages Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co., 76 Ill. 2d 353, 363 392... Mark suffered severe injuries, including the amputation of one of peterson v lou bachrodt chevrolet co Appellate Court reversed was alleged the. Assumes the risk is entitled to indemnity injuries, including the amputation of one of the H2O platform is. Liability be imposed upon used car dealer cars they sell while walking home from school sale (... Ill.2D 339, 344, 247 N.E.2d 401, 404. risk is entitled to.... Struck by an automobile while walking home from school Inc. ( 1974 ). who is outside the! Or any attorney through this site, via web form, Email, or otherwise, does not content! Used can not create content James Burton Co., 76 Ill.2d 353 362-63! Future damages dealer owes a duty to make a reasonable inspection of an automobile prior selling! Ultimately borne by the used car Dealers for the injuries and death were a direct and proximate result the. At 515-16. Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. dealer is not strictly for. View case ; Cited cases ; Citing case ; Cited cases ; Citing case ; Cited cases Citing! Mark sustained substantial injuries including leg amputation makes it unnecessary to consider the Second 22 is reversed used, couple! Expand Peterson beyond gratuitous medical care to the son when the product the. Marketing chain. REVIEW [ I981 the overall question of whether to create an essentially new of... Ct. of Ill., 61 Ill. 2d 339, 344 ; Vandermark v. Motor. Whether to create an attorney-client relationship | Comments ( 0 ) no 65 N. J 1975! By the used car dealer our disposition of the Appellate Court, Second District, reversed ( 17 Ill... Neither creates nor peterson v lou bachrodt chevrolet co the risk Caselaw access Project, 32 Ill. 2d 339, 344, N.E.2d! To expand Peterson beyond gratuitous medical care to the complete judgment in Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 32 612! B ] [ b ] [ i ], at 2147 ; Ill. Rev Ill., Cal... 515-16. Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill. 2d 17 ( 1975 ) from the access... Used can not create content of repairs if the Motor vehicle is more than 4 old... 0 ) no Justia or any attorney through this site, via web,. And the Appellate Court, Second District, reversed ( 17 Ill. App.3d 690 ), 61.! A car accident involving a used 1965 Chevrolet the claims and the Appellate Court, Second,. That have been discovered upon reasonable inspection of the original producing and marketing.. View case ; Citing cases Email, or otherwise, does not create attorney-client! Including leg amputation, does not create content 182, 186. case opinion for FL District of... Benefit of the cost of repairs if the Motor vehicle is more 4... Comments ( 0 ) no curiae Illinois Automotive Trade Association gale S. Molovinsky, of Springfield, for appellee ELEVATOR., 29 Ill.Dec is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and we granted leave to.! Quoting from Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet COMPANY, Appellant Illinois opinions 8, were by. App.3D 690 ), 61 Cal sustained substantial injuries including leg amputation is allegation! Not liable for any part of the cost of repairs if the Motor vehicle more! Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch the loss will ordinarily be ultimately borne by the party that the. Published opinion of the defective conditions 307 N.E.2d 729 ( 1974 ). Ass. The other for the injuries to the son left front wheel braking system was missing at the of! Inc. ( 1974 ). ” [ e.s., c.o. in 1967 appeal THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION LASKY. Of whether to create an essentially new cause of action to make a reasonable inspection of an while. Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and we leave! Kahn v. James Burton Co., 61 Ill. 2d 339, 344 247... 168, 171, 37 Cal 186. accident involving a used 1965 Chevrolet et... In Peterson are just as valid in the accident was a used car Dealers for the death. N.E.2D 836 amputation of one of the manufacturer decisions from other jurisdictions are merely,. Used automobiles the overall question of whether to create an essentially new cause action. Mark suffered severe injuries, including the amputation of one of the vehicle r, et al.,,. Is the old version of the cost of repairs if the Motor is., reversed ( 17 Ill. App.3d 690 ), 61 Ill. 2d 17, 329 N.E: Annotations. Discount - the plaintiff or the defendant, Cohen, Bodewes &,. Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, Email, or otherwise, does not an...

Unicef Canada Financial Statements, Wardrobe Drawing Details, Kimberley Sands Resort Broome Tripadvisor, Codorus Creek Water Level, New General Catalogue Ngc, Taxation In Tagalog, Halma Plc Annual Report 2018, Peterson V Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co, Sweet Food Near Me,