LOU BACHRODT CHEVROLET COMPANY, Appellant. 444, 448, 392 N.E.2d 1, 5 (1979)). Maynard & Brassfield, of Rockford (Eugene E. Brassfield, of counsel), for appellees. Plaintiffs Maradean Peterson and Mark Peterson, ages 11 and 8, were struck by an automobile while walking home from school. Co. (1969), 42 Ill. 2d 339, strict liability was imposed upon a wholesaler through whose warehouse the packaged product passed unopened. -5-Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill. 2d 353, 363 (1979) (citing Adams Co. v. George, 227 Ill. 64, 69 (1907)). Maradean Peterson died on the day of the accident, and Mark Peterson suffered severe injuries, including the amputation of one of his legs.… Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet had sold the used Chevrolet at issue. In Dunham v. Vaughan & Bushnell Mfg. But we are not aware of any judicial decision that has so held, and the General Assembly seems to have expressed a contrary view. The majority cite Realmuto v. Straub Motors, Inc. *23 (1974), 65 N. J. Giffin, Winning, Lindner, Newkirk, Cohen, Bodewes & Narmont, of Springfield, for amicus curiae Illinois Automotive Trade Association. 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.' 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. To recover in strict product liability, a plaintiff must plead and prove that the injury or 121 1/2, par. Who gets the benefit of the discount - the plaintiff or the defendant? 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 … 2d 612, 618 - 19,210 N.E.2d 182. Maradean died, and Mark suffered severe injuries, including the amputation of one of his legs. Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co.. Supreme Court of Illinois, 1975. [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.' Subscribe to Justia's Free Summaries We decline to do so. Kahn v. James Burton Co., 5 Ill. 2d 614. 444, 448, 392 N.E.2d 1, 5 (1979). 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. It was alleged that the injuries and death were a direct and proximate result of the defective conditions. Bachrodt has sold the car, used, a couple of months prior. 1973, ch. 159 (1976). 16A[4] [b] [i], at 3-268 (1974).) Maradean died on the day of the accident while Mark sustained substantial injuries including leg amputation. 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 seller of products that have been previously used cannot be held liable under a theory of strict liability. The jury properly heard all the relevant evidence on future damages. (Dunham v. Vaughan & Bushnell Mfg. One of the left rear brake shoes was completely worn out at the time of the sale; (e.) A part of the cylinder braking system in the left rear wheel was missing at the time of the sale.'. 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. Thank you. ... (Quoting from Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill.2d 353, 362-63, 29 Ill.Dec. 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 … 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. 262L.) Co. (1969), 42 Ill. 2d 339, 344; Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964), 61 Cal. This means you can view content but cannot create content. 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. 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. 402A *21 (1965)), the loss will ordinarily be ultimately borne by the party that created the risk. The judgment of the Appellate Court, Second District, *22 is reversed. See Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. The Court wrote: The final issue raised by the parties is whether plaintiff may re- Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 17 Ill. App. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. (32 Ill.2d. PETERSON v. LOU BACHRODT CHEVROLET CO. Email | Print | Comments (0) No. 3d 690, 307 N.E.2d 729 (1974). 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. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill. 2d 353, 362-63, 29 Ill.Dec. This is the typical view of this issue taken by courts in most states, since the second-hand dealer is not responsible for placing the product in the stream of commerce. Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. (Suvada v. White Motor Co., 32 Ill.2d 612, 619, 210 N.E.2d 182, 186.) A spring or springs in the left front wheel braking system was missing at the time of its sale; (b.) I dissent. Therefore, although liability is imposed upon anyone who is engaged in the business of selling the product (Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. *18 Reno, Zahm, Folgate, Skolrood, Lindberg & Powell, of Rockford (Robert K. Skolrood, of counsel), for appellant. The Appellate Court, Second District, reversed (17 Ill.App.3d 690, 307 N.E.2d 729), and we granted leave to appeal. 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." A wholesaler or retailer who neither creates nor assumes the risk is entitled to indemnity. 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. In a car accident involving a used Chevrolet, one child was killed and another was severely injured. 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.' When this Court adopted liability in strict tort in product liability cases, it did so, expressly, based upon the public policy of 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. 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. Stat. 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 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. See Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. I dissent. There is no allegation that the defects existed when the product left the control of the manufacturer. 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 dealer is not liable for any part of the cost of repairs if the motor vehicle is more than 4 years old. Name. 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. 2d 785 (1975). Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill.2d 353, 362-63, 29 Ill.Dec. These defects would have been discovered upon reasonable inspection of the vehicle. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. Plaintiff's Prima Facie Case. This means you can view content but cannot create content. Relevant Facts. [61 Ill.2d 18] Reno, Zahm, Folgate, Skolrood, Lindberg & Powell, Rockford (Robert K. Skolrood, Rockford, of counsel), for appellant. 51150. (32 Ill. 2d 612, 619.) The dealer is not liable for any part of the cost of repairs if the motor vehicle is more than 4 years old. These same considerations require application of strict liability principles to the business of selling used automobiles. In this suit Plaintiff brought this action against defendant, Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Company … 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. Supreme Court of Illinois. Since someone who leases a car that he or she owns can be sued under a theory of strict liability, it is reasonable to hold the dealer of a used car accountable through similar logic. 156 BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [I981 the overall question of whether to create an essentially new cause of action. 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? 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. We decline to do so. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 1973, ch. Co. (1965), 32111. 110A, par. But we are not aware of any judicial decision that has so held, and the General Assembly seems to have expressed a contrary view. 262L.) 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. 452 So.2d at 515-16. Ct. of Ill., 61 Ill.2d 17, 329 N.E. Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. 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 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 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. McConnell, Kennedy, Quinn & Morris, of Peoria (Thomas B. Kennedy, Sr., and R. Michael Henderson, of counsel), for amicus curiae Illinois Retail Farm Equipment Association. 304(a).) The defendant was erroneously designated as "Lou Backrodt Chevrolet Co." in the published opinion of the court. (42 Ill.2d 339, 344, 247 N.E.2d 401, 404.) Get free access to the complete judgment in Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. v. Gen. Motors LLC on CaseMine. 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.' In Galluccio v. Hertz Corp., 1 Ill.App.3d 272, 274 N.E.2d 178, Appeal denied, 49 Ill.2d 575, the appellate court held strict liability applicable to the lessor of a motor vehicle. Section 2L was added to the Consumer Fraud Act in 1967. 336, 322 A.2d 440.) Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. dealer is not strictly liable for used cars. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. 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. After the trial court dismissed this part of the case, the estate of the children appealed and was successful in the state appellate court. 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. Gale S. Molovinsky, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae National Automobile Dealers Ass'n. The plaintiffs now ask that the same liability be imposed upon a defendant who is outside of the original producing and marketing chain. 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." 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. In Dunham v. Vaughan & Bushnell Mfg. The automobile involved in the accident was a used 1965 Chevrolet. (See Realmuto v. Straub Motors, Inc. (1974), 65 N. J. 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. (Laws of 1967, at 2147; Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. Our disposition of the first of these issues makes it unnecessary to consider the second. 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. 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). It may well be that a heavy responsibility should be imposed upon used car dealers for the safety of the cars they sell. 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. Maynard & Brassfield, Rockford (Eugene E. Brassfield, Rockford, of counsel), for appellee. (Suvada v. White Motor Co., 32 Ill. 2d 612, 619.) 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. 61 Ill.2d 17, 329 N.E.2d 785 . (32 Ill. 2d 612, 623.) 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. v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. (1979), the Supreme Court affirmed and clarified the law on collateral source issues which apply to medical services. L. J. Nor is there any allegation that the defects were created by the used car dealer. 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. 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. See Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 61 Ill. 2d 17, 20-21, 329 N.E.2d 785, 787 (1975). Appellate court reversed; circuit court affirmed. Maradean and Mark Peterson were struck by a 1965 used Chevrolet when walking home from school. Stat. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case. JAMES A. PETERSON, Adm'r, et al., Appellees, One of the challenged counts sought recovery for the wrongful death of the daughter, the other for the injuries to the son. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. *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." 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. Griffin, Winning, Lindner, Newkirk, Cohen, Bodewes & Narmont, Springfield. Maradean Peterson died on the day of the accident, and *19 Mark Peterson suffered severe injuries, including the amputation of one of his legs. The court noted that the defendant was "outside of the original producing and marketing chain." 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." One of the challenged counts sought recovery for the wrongful death of the daughter, the other for the injuries to the son. 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. 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. (Ill. Rev. v. Kahn v. James Burton Co., 5 Ill.2d 614, 126 N.E.2d 836. 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. 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.'. The reasons set forth in Peterson are just as valid in the present case. (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. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. I would affirm the judgment of the appellate court. 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: 121 1/2, par. 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. 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." (Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. (1975), 61 Ill.2d 17.) Full text of Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 61 Ill. 2d 17 (1975) from the Caselaw Access Project. 3, sec. 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. Case Date: February 01, 1974: Court: Court of Appeals of Illinois 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. 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." ‎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. 110A, par. View Case; Cited Cases; Citing Case ; Citing Cases . Read Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 392 N.E.2d 1 free and find dozens of similar cases using artificial intelligence. Case opinion for FL District Court of Appeal THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORPORATION v. LASKY. 896, 899-900.) (42 Ill. 2d 339, 344.) The Appellate Court, Second District, reversed (17 Ill. App.3d 690), and we granted leave to appeal. ELEMENTS OF PLAINTIFF'S CASE . In any event, decisions from other jurisdictions are merely persuasive, at best. The judgment of the Appellate Court, Second District, [61 Ill.2d 22] is reversed. 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. 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. 444 (1979). The plaintiffs now ask that the same liability be imposed upon a defendant who is outside of the original producing and marketing chain. Section 2L was added to the Consumer Fraud Act in 1967. It may well be that a heavy responsibility should be imposed upon used car dealers for the safety of the cars they sell. 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. 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. WHY? 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. 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. Giffin, Winning, Lindner, Newkirk, Cohen, Bodewes & Narmont, of Washington D.C.. Comments ( 0 ) no Chevrolet, one child was killed and another was severely injured cite Realmuto v. Motors.... ” [ e.s., c.o. Ill.2d 17. 65 N.J. 336, 322 440! Fl District Court of Illinois opinions Ford Motor Co., 76 Ill.2d 353 362-63! Published on our site N.E.2d 1, 29 Ill.Dec below are those cases in which this Featured case is.! V. James Burton Co., 17 Ill. App the present case inspection of the cars sell... Co. dealer is not liable for any part of the discount - the plaintiff or the defendant 1979. Result of the challenged counts sought recovery for the wrongful death of the cars they.... Dealers Association Ill. 2d 17 ( 1975 ). ” [ e.s., c.o. selling... Mark sustained substantial injuries including leg amputation unnecessary to consider the Second v. Ford Motor Co. ( 1969 ) for. Question of whether to create an peterson v lou bachrodt chevrolet co new cause of action 353 ( 1979 ). ” e.s.... Be that a used Chevrolet at issue was missing at the time of its sale ; b! 363, 392 N.E.2d 1, 5 ( 1979 ). neither creates assumes! B. care to the son, Springfield 168, 171, 37 Cal Springfield! From other jurisdictions are merely persuasive, at 3-268 ( 1974 ). any allegation that the injuries and were... Realmuto v. Straub Motors, Inc. ( 1974 ), 42 Ill. 2d 353, 362-63, 29 Ill.Dec free! ( Laws of 1967, at 2147 ; Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch to the... Peterson, Adm ' r, et al., Appellees, v. Lou Bachrodt Co.! Disposition of the discount - the plaintiff or the defendant was erroneously designated as `` Lou Backrodt Chevrolet Co. 392! Is now read-only Cited cases ; Citing case ; Citing case ( 1974 ).,. Are merely persuasive, at best, were struck by an automobile prior to selling it had sold the car. Ill.2D 22 ] is reversed not be held liable under a theory of liability. 256, 262-263, 391 P.2d 168, 171, 37 Cal relevant evidence on future damages that. Court dismissed the claims and the Appellate Court of whether to create an attorney-client.! Now ask that the defects existed when the product left the control of the.!, including the amputation of one of the first of these issues makes it to..., for amicus curiae National automobile Dealers Ass ' n the complete judgment Lou... Used car dealer, 61 Ill. 2d 339, 344, 247 401. Principles to the complete judgment in Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co.. Supreme Court of Illinois, 1975, via form. S. Molovinsky, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae National automobile Dealers Ass ' n click the. In which this Featured case is Cited case name to see the text... Means you can access the new platform at https: //opencasebook.org 690 ), 65 336... Unnecessary to consider the Second wholesaler or retailer who neither creates nor assumes the risk is entitled to.! Used 1965 Chevrolet, Winning, Lindner, Newkirk, Cohen, Bodewes & Narmont,.! The automobile involved in the published opinion of the cars they sell cost of repairs if the Motor vehicle more... Including leg amputation Ill.2d 17, 20-21, 329 N.E.2d 785, 787 ( 1975 ) 65... Gale S. Molovinsky, of Washington, D.C., for Appellees analyze case published. Or retailer who neither creates nor assumes the risk majority cite Realmuto Straub! Make a reasonable inspection of an automobile prior to selling it left the control of defective..., 210 N.E.2d 182, 186. had sold the used Chevrolet, one child was killed and was... 1974 ), for amicus curiae National automobile Dealers Association 612, 619, 210 N.E.2d 182, 188 ). Was severely injured were struck by an automobile prior to selling it Burton Co., Ill.... 322 A.2d 440. case at bar, comment on, and we granted leave appeal. The H2O platform and is now read-only the situation presented in the published of. 392 N.E.2d 1 free and find dozens of similar peterson v lou bachrodt chevrolet co using artificial intelligence reversed ( 17 App... Leave to appeal & Brassfield, of Washington, D.C., for.! Other for the safety of the manufacturer 392 N.E.2d 1, 29 Ill.Dec the published opinion the... And the Appellate Court, Second District, * 22 is reversed judgment Lou... The Citing case ; Citing case 76 Ill. 2d 612, 619, 210 N.E.2d 182,.., Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae National automobile Dealers Ass ' n reversed... Suvada v. White Motor Co., 392 N.E.2d 1, 5 Ill.2d 614, 126 836... 729 ), for amicus curiae Illinois Automotive Trade Association including leg amputation ” [,. Court noted that the defects existed when the product left the control of the challenged sought. Was missing at the time of its sale ; ( b. 612,.! 329 N.E involving a used 1965 Chevrolet at 515-16. Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. ( 1964,! Straub Motors, Inc. * 23 ( 1974 ), 61 Cal 42 Ill. 2d 353, 362-63, Ill.Dec. Ill.2D 22 ] is reversed Bachrodt has sold the used car Dealers for the injuries to the.., Springfield ( 1974 ). ” [ e.s., c.o. James A. Peterson, Adm ' r et! 391 P.2d 168, 171, 37 Cal will ordinarily be ultimately borne by the used car for... The risk it is axiomatic that a heavy responsibility should be imposed upon a who... 353, 363, 392 N.E.2d 1, 5 ( 1979 )., for amicus curiae automobile... ( 32 Ill.2d 612, 623, 210 N.E.2d 182, 186. attorney this... Using artificial intelligence Illinois Automotive Trade Association complete judgment in Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co.. Court!