Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

10/06/88 Pearl Brown, v. Jewel Companies

October 6, 1988

PEARL BROWN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

v.

JEWEL COMPANIES, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

THE COMPLAINT FURTHER ALLEGED DEFENDANTS WERE NEGLIGENT AND VIOLATED THEIR DUTY UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE PREMISES LIABILITY ACT (ILL. RE

v.

STAT. 1985, CH. 80, PAR. 302), IN THAT THEIR SECURITY GUARD: "(A) . . . FAILED TO RESTRAIN THE SUSPECT;



APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FOURTH DISTRICT

530 N.E.2d 57, 175 Ill. App. 3d 729, 125 Ill. Dec. 139 1988.IL.1507

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Macon County; the Hon. John L. Davis, Judge, presiding.

APPELLATE Judges:

PRESIDING JUSTICE GREEN delivered the opinion of the court. LUND and SPITZ, JJ., concur.

DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE GREEN

On October 26, 1987, plaintiff filed suit in the circuit court of Macon County against defendants Jewel Companies, Inc., and Osco Drug, Inc. After that complaint was dismissed on defendants' motion, an amended complaint was filed against the same defendants, who again moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2 -- 615.) On March 2, 1988, the court allowed that motion, granting plaintiff a further opportunity to amend. Plaintiff elected to stand on the amended complaint and, on March 23, 1988, the court entered judgment in bar of action in favor of both defendants. Plaintiff has appealed. We determine that each count contains allegations of a cause of action but also purports to impose liability based on allegations which do not set forth a tort. Accordingly, we reverse the order of dismissal and remand for further proceedings with directions that much of the complaint be ordered stricken.

Plaintiff's amended complaint is apparently directed against each defendant in separate counts, but each count makes the same allegations because plaintiff contends defendants together were the operators of a combined grocery and drug store in a mall in Decatur on April 7, 1987, the date of the alleged incident in question. She alleged defendants employed security guards to protect against shoplifting. She also alleged the "guards customarily pursued and apprehended suspected shoplifters on the store premises," and "some of . . . [those apprehended] had fled or attempted to flee through the exit" of the store in the past. The amended complaint further set forth that defendants (1) knew their self-service method of operation made shoplifting on the premises more likely, and (2) should have anticipated shoplifters would be pursued by the guards and injure customers in the course of their flight.

The amended complaint then alleged: (1) on April 7, 1987, plaintiff was a customer in defendants' store, and was in the process of leaving, when a suspected shoplifter, being chased by guards, knocked plaintiff through a door and onto a sidewalk, whereupon a chasing security guard kicked or stepped on plaintiff's foot, injuring her further. That complaint maintained the security guard had stopped the accused shoplifter near the exit to the store, but the guard's effort to seize the shoplifter was unsuccessful.

(b) . . . failed to block the suspect's path to the exit;

(c) . . . pursued the suspect when he knew or should have known that customers would thereby be endangered;

(d) . . . failed to keep a proper lookout while pursuing the suspect;

(e) . . . failed to avoid plaintiff's foot;

(f) . . . failed to apprehend the suspect at a place where her flight would not jeopardize other persons on the store premises; [and]

(g) [defendants] failed to properly train [their] security guard in the restraint and pursuit ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.