Bruntjen v. Bethalto Pizza, LLC, 2014 IL App (5th) 120245, ¶ 152. This is because a timely objection assists the court in correcting any problems and prohibits the challenging party from gaining an advantage by obtaining a reversal based on the party's own failure to act.
In Bruntjen v. Bethalto Pizza, LLC, 18 N.E.3d 215, 239-40 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014), for example, the court held that an agreement between the parties, an operating manual, and the franchisor's contract with the franchisee's employees provided ample evidence that "[the defendant] had the right to control many aspects of [the purported agent's] daily operations." Id. at 240
However, Plaintiff opposes summary judgment on the basis that, although there is generally "no duty to control the conduct of a third person to prevent him from causing physical harm to another *** this rule does not apply where an act or omission of the defendant does contribute to the risk of harm." [352] at 8 (citing Bruntjen v. Bethalto Pizza, LLC, 18 N.E.3d 215, 231 (Ill. App. 2014)). Plaintiff contends that "Moore's failure to take action to prevent Walker from engaging in an unjustified killing of Mr. Horton by calling the police as she was expected to do contributed to the risk of harm to Mr. Horton."
Tri-G, Inc. v. Burke, Bosselman & Weaver , 222 Ill. 2d 218, 250-51, 305 Ill.Dec. 584, 856 N.E.2d 389 (2006) (quoting Fedt v. Oak Lawn Lodge, Inc. , 132 Ill. App. 3d 1061, 1072, 88 Ill.Dec. 154, 478 N.E.2d 469 (1985) ). ¶ 23 We find Bruntjen v. Bethalto Pizza, LLC , 2014 IL App (5th) 120245, 385 Ill.Dec. 215, 18 N.E.3d 215, a case relied on by plaintiff, to be more instructive. There, the plaintiff obtained a $ 2.28 million jury verdict for a traumatic brain injury he sustained when he was involved in an automobile accident, which included $ 196,000 for past medical expenses and $ 461,000 for future medical expenses.
SeeCastro v. Brown's Chicken & Pasta, Inc. , 314 Ill.App.3d 542, 247 Ill.Dec. 321, 732 N.E.2d 37, 46 (2000) (citing cases); Blankenship v. Peoria Park Dist. , 269 Ill.App.3d 416, 207 Ill.Dec. 325, 647 N.E.2d 287, 291 (1995) (rejecting plaintiff's argument that the defendant's internal rules requiring one lifeguard to remain on duty at all times created a legal duty to have one lifeguard on duty); Fillpot v. Midway Airlines, Inc. , 261 Ill.App.3d 237, 198 Ill.Dec. 775, 633 N.E.2d 237, 242 (1994) (rejecting plaintiff's argument that defendant's policy manual requiring the clearing of walkways created a legal duty on defendant's part to protect plaintiff from natural accumulations). Plaintiffs rely heavily on Bruntjen v. Bethalto Pizza, LLC, et al. , 385 Ill.Dec. 215, 18 N.E.3d 215 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014) to support their voluntary undertaking theory. In Bruntjen , a franchisor appealed a trial court's order in favor of the plaintiff who was injured by the franchisee's employee, a pizza delivery driver.
Comparing Oliveira-Brooks to Bruntjen v. Bethalto Pizza, LLC, 385 Ill. Dec. 215 (App. Ct. 2014) makes clear that a contractual obligation to name another as an additional insured saves a claim relying on agency only where there are other allegations of control. In Bruntjen, the Illinois appellate court affirmed the decision denying the defendants' motion to dismiss a claim based on an agency relationship.
¶ 44 Plaintiffs cite authority for the proposition that "[a] written contract is not conclusive of the nature of the relationship between the parties." Bruntjen v. Bethalto Pizza, LLC, 2014 IL App (5th) 120245, ¶ 80, 18 N.E.3d 215. In particular, "the declaration of the parties is not controlling where the conduct of the parties demonstrates the existence of
A party cannot complain of error that he invited. See Bruntjen v. Bethalto Pizza, LLC, 2014 IL App (5th) 120245, ¶ 152, 18 N.E.3d 215. "Invited error is a form of estoppel that bars a party from complaining on appeal about 'error which that party induced the court to make or to which that party consented.'
Any error in not allowing testimony regarding specific instances would be invited error. Bruntjen v. Bethalto Pizza, LLC, 2014 IL App (5th) 120245, ¶ 154. ¶ 27 The petitioners also contend that Dr. Gelbort's testimony was improperly limited because he was not allowed to rely on anecdotal evidence about the deceased's current behavior to testify regarding the permanency of his head injury. The petitioners argue that the Dead-Man's Act only precluded interested parties from testifying regarding any conversations with the deceased and that Dr. Gelbort, as an expert, could rely on the information from the family.
¶ 23 Kramer's negligence claims against Uber and Kessanti were based on three theories of liability: common-law negligence, statutory negligence, and voluntary undertaking. Though each theory differs in some respects, they all share one feature in common: Each requires that the plaintiff plead and prove that the defendant's alleged negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. Thompson v. Gordon , 241 Ill. 2d 428, 438, 349 Ill.Dec. 936, 948 N.E.2d 39 (2011) (common-law negligence); Munizza v. City of Chicago , 222 Ill. App. 3d 50, 56, 164 Ill.Dec. 645, 583 N.E.2d 561 (1991) (statutory negligence); Bruntjen v. Bethalto Pizza, LLC , 2014 IL App (5th) 120245, ¶ 60, 385 Ill.Dec. 215, 18 N.E.3d 215 (voluntary undertaking). ¶ 24 Proximate cause is a two-part inquiry. First Springfield Bank v. Galman , 188 Ill. 2d 252, 257-58, 242 Ill.Dec. 113, 720 N.E.2d 1068 (1999).