Culligan Rock River Water Conditioning Co. v. Gearhart

18 Citing cases

  1. Linc Capital, Inc. v. Interlink Electronics, Inc. (In re Linc Capital, Inc.)

    312 B.R. 368 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2004)

    735 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/19-125 (2004). Damages awarded under this section are intended to provide full indemnity for damages suffered, Culligan Rock River Water Conditioning Company v. Gearhart III, 111 Ill.App.3d 254, 258, 66 Ill.Dec. 902, 443 N.E.2d 1065 (Ill.App.Ct. 2nd Dist.1982), and are measured from the time the property was taken until its return, Internat'l Harvester Credit Corp. v. Helland, 130 Ill.App.3d 836, 85 Ill.Dec. 922, 474 N.E.2d 882 (Ill.App.Ct. 2nd Dist.1985).          Damages include depreciation in value during the period of wrongful detention and reasonable value of the use of the property during the period of wrongful detention.

  2. Performance Food Grp. Co. v. ARBA Care Ctr. of Bloomington, LLC

    2017 Ill. App. 3d 160348 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)   Cited 20 times
    Affirming the trial court's summary judgment order and finding a contract existed where the defendants' answer admitted it

    The affirmative defenses were forfeited, therefore, and plaintiff had no duty to respond to or negate those defenses. See 735 ILCS 5/2-613(d) (West 2014) (the facts constituting any affirmative defense must be plainly set forth in the answer or reply); In re Estate of Wrage, 194 Ill. App. 3d 117, 122, 141 Ill.Dec. 69, 550 N.E.2d 1115 (1990) (respondent's affirmative defenses failed to provide any factual basis for her position and were, therefore, inadequately pled); Kaufman & Broad Homes, Inc. v. Allied Homes, Inc., 86 Ill. App. 3d 498, 501, 41 Ill.Dec. 745, 408 N.E.2d 91 (1980) (the facts constituting any affirmative defense must be plainly set forth in the answer or reply so as to ensure that the reviewing courts are not asked to rule upon questions which were not raised and argued below); Culligan Rock River Water Conditioning Co. v. Gearhart, 111 Ill. App. 3d 254, 259, 66 Ill.Dec. 902, 443 N.E.2d 1065 (1982) (a defense that is not properly pled is considered to be forfeited).¶ 23 II. Whether the Automatic Bankruptcy Stay Applied to the ARBA Defendants in This Case¶ 24 Defendants assert second in support of their argument on appeal that summary judgment should not have been granted for plaintiff in this case because it was precluded by the automatic bankruptcy stay that arose when the ASTA entities filed for bankruptcy protection in federal court. Defendants maintain that the automatic bankruptcy stay applied to plaintiff's claim against the ARBA defendants because plaintiff was asserting in this case that the ASTA and ARBA entities were one and the same and was seeking to collect ASTA debt through the ARBA entities.

  3. St. George Chicago v. Geo. Murges Assoc

    296 Ill. App. 3d 285 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 37 times
    Holding that a landlord's failure to mitigate damages will not bar recovery, but will cause otherwise recoverable damages to be reduced

    Thus, where an injured party, through his own negligence or wilfulness, permits his loss to be unnecessarily enhanced, the increased loss will be borne by the injured party. Culligan Rock River Water Conditioning Co. v. Gearhart, 111 Ill. App.3d 254, 258, 443 N.E.2d 1065 (1982). In other words, losses which could have been reasonably avoided are not recoverable. Nancy's Home of the Stuffed Pizza, Inc. v. Cirrincione, 144 Ill. App.3d 934, 941, 494 N.E.2d 795 (1986); Culligan, 111 Ill. App.3d at 258.

  4. Int'l Harvester Cr. Corp. v. Helland

    151 Ill. App. 3d 848 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986)   Cited 13 times
    In Harvester, the court found the plaintiff was not entitled to loss of use damages based on reasonable rental value because the plaintiff was not using and did not intend to use the property at the time of the deprivation.

    In addition to the reasonable use of the property, the injured party is entitled to the depreciation in the value of the property while unlawfully detained. ( Culligan Rock River Water Conditioning Co. v. Gearhart (1982), 111 Ill. App.3d 254, 258-59, 443 N.E.2d 1065, 1068; Larson v. Mobile Home Finance Co. (1967), 83 Ill. App.2d 210, 216-17, 226 N.E.2d 882, 885.) Damages awarded under the replevin act are intended to provide full indemnity for damages suffered.

  5. Toledo Peoria Western v. Metro Waste Systems

    59 F.3d 637 (7th Cir. 1995)   Cited 12 times
    Finding that insured was entitled to expenses of mitigation and the diminished value of the property although it "would have been more economical to have scrapped the damaged property at the outset rather than to have attempted repairing it"

    While the district court correctly stated the basic formula used in Illinois to calculate recovery for damages to personal property, its strict application of that formula to the facts of this case bypassed another well-established rule of damages in Illinois, the doctrine of mitigation. It has long been the law in Illinois that an injured party has an obligation to take reasonable steps to minimize his damages and thus avoid heaping up additional losses for which the tortfeasor may be held liable. Cedar Rapids I.C. Ry. Light Co. v. Sprague Elec. Co., 280 Ill. 386, 117 N.E. 461, 463 (1917); Culligan Rock River Water Cond. Co. v. Gearhart, 111 Ill. App.3d 254, 66 Ill.Dec. 902, 905, 443 N.E.2d 1065, 1068 (1982) (collecting cases); see also Oddi v. Ayco Corp., 947 F.2d 257, 264 (7th Cir. 1991) (observing that under Illinois law a plaintiff has a duty to mitigate damages). In exchange, the injured party is entitled to recover from the tortfeasor all reasonable expenses incurred to minimize the loss.

  6. Frier v. City of Vandalia

    770 F.2d 699 (7th Cir. 1985)   Cited 26 times
    In Frier, the City of Vandalia towed four vehicles belonging to plaintiff which were parked in the street such that other cars were forced to drive on lawns to pass the plaintiff's vehicles.

    Puritan Finance Corp. v. Gumdrops, Inc., 101 Ill. App.3d 888, 57 Ill.Dec. 270, 273, 428 N.E.2d 950, 953 (1981). Thus, Frier would be able to collect compensation for the reasonable rental value of the property for the period of the seizure, see Culligan Rock River Water Conditioning Co. v. Gearhart, 111 Ill.App.3d 254, 66 Ill.Dec. 902, 904-05, 443 N.E.2d 1065, 1067-68 (1982), as well as for any towing costs incurred. It is not clear whether punitive damages are recoverable in a replevin action.

  7. Stevens v. Interactive Fin. Advisors, Inc.

    Case No. 11 C 2223 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2015)   Cited 14 times

    "It has long been the law in Illinois that an injured party has an obligation to take reasonable steps to minimize his damages and thus avoid heaping up additional losses for which the tortfeasor may be held liable." Toledo Peoria & W. Ry. v. Metro Waste Sys., Inc., 59 F.3d 637, 640 (7th Cir. 1995) (citing Culligan Rock River Water Conditioning Co. v. Gearhart, 111 Ill. App. 3d 254, 258, 443 N.E.2d 1065, 1068 (1982)). If the injured party "fails to take reasonable steps to avoid additional harm, he bears the risk of any increased damages which could have been avoided." Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 211 F.3d 367, 372 (7th Cir. 2000).

  8. Williams Electronic Games, Inc. v. Barry

    No. 97 C 3743 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 17, 2001)   Cited 7 times
    Denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment because disputed issues of fact existed with respect to, whether a RICO "enterprise" existed, and whether a "pattern of racketeering activity" was present

    In Illinois, however, the doctrine of mitigation of damages "applied in virtually every type of case in which recovery of a money judgment or award is authorized." Culligan Rock River Water Conditioning Co. v. Gearhart, 111 Ill. App.3d 254, 258 (2d Dist. 1982). Arrow's mitigation claim is based on its assertion that plaintiff turned a blind eye to Barry's alleged activity. Because that is a factual question, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the defense of failure to mitigate damages is denied.

  9. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Devon Bank

    123 F.R.D. 569 (N.D. Ill. 1988)   Cited 2 times

    If, by this negligence or wilfulness, he allows the damages to be unnecessarily enhanced, the increased loss, that which was avoidable by the performance of his duty, falls upon him. Culligan & Rock River Water Conditioning Co. v. Gearhart, 111 Ill.App.3d 254, 258, 66 Ill.Dec. 902, 905, 443 N.E.2d 1065, 1068 (2d Dist.1982). As the passage quoted above makes clear, a party need only take reasonable steps to mitigate damages.

  10. In re Pre-Press Graphics Company, Inc.

    Bankr. No. 02 B 08292, Adv. No. 03 A. 04400 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Jun. 22, 2004)

    Munoz v. Expedited Freight Sys., Inc., 775 F. Supp. 1181, 1190 (N.D. Ill. 1991). If a party allows its damages to be unnecessarily increased, the loss that was avoidable by the performance of the party's duty falls upon that party. Culligan Rock River Water Conditioning Co. v.Gearhart, 443 N.E.2d 1065, 1068 (Ill.App.Ct. 1982) (citations omitted). "In other words, losses which could have been reasonably avoided are not recoverable."