Gasquoine v. Bornstein

11 Citing cases

  1. Lamkin v. Towner

    138 Ill. 2d 510 (Ill. 1990)   Cited 142 times
    Ruling that an affidavit stating that the distributor had no actual knowledge of the defect in the product is sufficient to effectuate the dismissal of a non-manufacture under the Distributor Statute

    We recognize that our decision on this single issue is in conformity with a series of Illinois appellate opinions holding that, as a matter of law, there is no duty on the part of a landlord to maintain in any window of an apartment he leases to tenants a screen sufficiently strong to support the weight of a tenant's minor child leaning against the screen. See Laster v. Chicago Housing Authority (1982), 104 Ill. App.3d 540, 543 (landlord had no duty to repair allegedly defective window screens or otherwise make them "safe against the possibility of children falling out of the window"); Scheffler v. Ringhofer (1966), 67 Ill. App.2d 222 (landlord had no duty to furnish screens that were suitable for anything other than keeping out insects); Gasquoine v. Bornstein (1956), 10 Ill. App.2d 423 (no duty on the part of landlord to maintain a window screen sufficient to support the weight of a minor leaning against it, even if the screen was insecure, defective and likely to fall out when slight pressure was exerted); Rogers v. Sins (1953), 349 Ill. App. 353 (landlord had no duty to provide screens which a child could not push out or dislodge); Crawford v. Orner Shayne, Inc. (1947), 331 Ill. App. 568 (no duty on the part of landlords to maintain a window screen sufficient to support the weight of a minor leaning against it, even where minor's parents notified the landlords and their agents that the screen was loose, defective and dangerous and did not fit the window properly). Our decision on this issue is also consistent with the majority of authority in other jurisdictions. Courts considering injuries sustained by a minor who has fallen through a window screen have generally attached no liability to the landlord, finding no duty on the landlord's part to maintain screens c

  2. Lamkin v. Towner

    246 Ill. App. 3d 201 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)   Cited 12 times

    3. That under Illinois law it is well established that a window screen is not required or intended to keep persons from falling out of the window in which is it placed. Crawford v. Orner Shayne [Inc. (1947)], 331 Ill. App. 568, 73 N.E.2d 615, Gasquoine v. Bornstein [(1956)], 10 Ill. App. [2]d 423, 135 N.E.2d 121. 4. That the foregoing rule of law clearly establishes that a window and window screen cannot be defective or unreasonably dangerous because it does not prevent a person from falling through the window as this is not its intended purpose as a matter of law.

  3. Laster v. Chicago Housing Authority

    432 N.E.2d 1185 (Ill. App. Ct. 1982)   Cited 6 times

    ning the said screen with flanges, grooves and hinges which were inadequate, insecure and defective, so that the screen was likely to fall out when slight pressure was exerted upon it. As a proximate result of one or more of these negligent acts or omissions, plaintiff sustained severe and permanent injuries. It further alleged that at the time of the occurrence defendant was insured. Defendant's motion to dismiss alleged, among other matters, that in paragraph 6 of the written lease the tenants covenanted to keep their apartment in a good state of repair and the landlord did not covenant in the lease to repair the screens or otherwise keep the apartment in a good state of repair; therefore, defendant had no duty to repair said window screens or otherwise make them "safe against the possibility of children falling out of the windows" and cited in support Crawford v. Orner Shayne, Inc. (1947), 331 Ill. App. 568, 73 N.E.2d 615; Rogers v. Sins (1953), 349 Ill. App. 353, 110 N.E.2d 643; Gasquoine v. Bornstein (1956), 10 Ill. App.2d 423, 135 N.E.2d 121, appeal denied (1956), 9 Ill.2d 627, and Scheffler v. Ringhofer (1966), 67 Ill. App.2d 222, 214 N.E.2d 575. • 1 The trial court dismissed on the ground that plaintiff's amended complaint failed to allege any common law duty owed by defendant to plaintiff.

  4. Henstein v. Buschbach

    248 Ill. App. 3d 1010 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)   Cited 16 times

    Appellate decisions approved in Lamkin make it clear that window screens are not expected to afford children any protection from falling and do not serve as a restraint in that regard. Lamkin concludes that the landlord has no duty to repair allegedly defective window screens or otherwise make them "safe against the possibility of * * * children falling out of the window" ( Laster v. Chicago Housing Authority (1982), 104 Ill. App.3d 540, 543, 432 N.E.2d 1185); that the landlord will not be liable even if the screen was insecure, defective and likely to fall out when slight pressure was exerted ( Gasquoine v. Bornstein (1956), 10 Ill. App.2d 423, 135 N.E.2d 121); and that the landlord has no duty to maintain a screen sufficient to support the weight of a minor even if the minor's parents notified the landlords and their agent that the screen was loose, defective and dangerous and did not fit the window properly ( Crawford v. Orner Shayne, Inc. (1947), 331 Ill. App. 568, 73 N.E.2d 615). Had the alleged agreement been to provide bars or other restraints fit for the purpose intended to restrain children, we would have viewed this in a different light.

  5. Lamkin v. Towner

    190 Ill. App. 3d 631 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989)   Cited 5 times

    Defendants essentially rely on the same cases to support their proposition. ( Laster v. Chicago Housing Authority (1982), 104 Ill. App.3d 540, 432 N.E.2d 1185; Scheffler v. Ringhoffer (1966), 67 Ill. App.2d 222, 214 N.E.2d 575; Gasquoine v. Bornstein (1956), 10 Ill. App.2d 423, 135 N.E.2d 121; Rogers v. Sins (1953), 349 Ill. App. 353, 110 N.E.2d 643; Crawford v. Orner Shayne, Inc. (1947), 331 Ill. App. 568, 73 N.E. 615.) Plaintiffs respond that defendants' proposition that screens serve the sole purpose of keeping insects out and, therefore, there is no liability when a screen fails causing a child to fall through a window opening is antiquated and fails under modern tort law.

  6. Jones v. Chicago Housing Authority

    376 N.E.2d 26 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978)   Cited 12 times
    In Jones, the evidence showed that the housing authority had the practice of consistently making repairs to the tenant's premises upon the tenant's request.

    • 4 As in the Madison case, defendant attempts to cite cases involving window screens to support its argument that there was no duty owed to plaintiff. ( Crawford v. Orner Shayne, Inc. (1947), 331 Ill. App. 568, 73 N.E.2d 615; Gasguoine v. Bornstein (1956), 10 Ill. App.2d 423, 135 N.E.2d 121.) However, these cases are inapplicable. As the above cases indicate, screens serve a particular purpose and are not expected to be of sturdy construction.

  7. Riley v. Housing Auth

    36 Ohio App. 2d 44 (Ohio Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 14 times

    In a majority of these cases, the rationale of the decisions denying liability proceeded on a determination of the absence of any duty of the landlord to the tenant either to install or repair screens in a fashion to prevent individuals or children from falling through. Examples of these decisions include: Chelefou v. Springfield Inst. for Savings, 297 Mass. 236, 8 N.E.2d 769; Egan v. Krueger (N. J.), 135 A. 811; Gustin v. Williams, 62 Cal Reptr. 838; Gasquoine v. Bornstein, 10 Ill. App.2d 423, 135 N.E.2d 121; Rogers v. Sins, 349 Ill. App. 387, 110 N.E.2d 643; Scheffler v. Ringhofer, 67 Ill. App.2d 222, 214 N.E.2d 575; Miller v. Woodhead (N. Y.), 11 N.E. 57; contra, Shaw v. Butterworth, 327 Mo. 622, 38 S.W.2d 57, where the landlord undertook to make repairs to the screens and did so in a negligent fashion (cf. Verplanck v. Morgan, supra). Other decisions denying liability predicate their rulings variously on the absence of any element of foreseeability, Chelefou v. Springfield Inst. for Savings, supra, Weaver v. Schneider Realty Company (Mo.), 381 S.W.2d 866; on the primary duty which rests on parents or those standing in loco parentis, Reek v. Lutz, 90 R. I. 340, 158 A.2d 145, Jones v. United States (C.C.A. 4), 241 F.2d 26; and on assumption of the risk, Jones v. United States, supra.

  8. Madison v. Reuben

    262 N.E.2d 794 (Ill. App. Ct. 1970)   Cited 10 times

    At the close of the plaintiff's case in chief a verdict was directed for the defendant. On appeal, the Appellate Court held that since it was not the purpose of window screens to prevent persons from falling out of windows, liability could not be imposed, since the plaintiff's injury was not the result of the defendant's failure to perform any duty owed her. Gasquoine v. Bornstein, 10 Ill. App.2d 423, 135 N.E.2d 121, was an action brought on behalf of a seventeen-month-old child against the landlord of the building in which he and his family resided. The plaintiff sought to recover for personal injuries sustained when a window screen against which he was leaning gave way and caused him to fall to the ground.

  9. McKenzie v. Atlantic Manor, Inc.

    181 So. 2d 554 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)   Cited 5 times

    In regard to the proximate cause, there seems to be a definite split of authority as to whether defective screening [coupled with the landlord's knowledge of the defect and his duty to repair] is sufficient in and of itself to constitute the proximate cause of injury to the appellant herein. See: Robertson v. Acme Homestead Ass'n, 5th Cir. 1932, 60 F.2d 89; Baker v. Dallas Hotel Co., 5th Cir. 1934, 73 F.2d 825, 826; Gould v. DeBeve, 1964, 117 U.S.App. D.C. 360, 330 F.2d 826; Schlemmer v. Stokes, 47 Cal.App.2d 164, 117 P.2d 396; Crawford v. Orner Shayne, Inc., 331 Ill. App. 568, 73 N.E.2d 615; Gasquoine v. Bornstein, 10 Ill. App.2d 423, 135 N.E.2d 121; Chelefou v. Springfield Inst. For Savings, 297 Mass. 236, 8 N.E.2d 769; Miller v. George B. Peck Dry Goods Co., 104 Mo. App. 609, 78 S.W. 682; Shaw v. Butterworth, 327 Mo. 622, 38 S.W.2d 57; Olian v. Olian, 332 Mo. 689, 59 S.W.2d 673; Egan v. Krueger, 103 N.J.L. 474, 135 A. 811, 58 A.L.R. 1450; Ross v. Haner, Tex.Civ.App. 1922, 244 S.W. 231. Neither of the counsel for the parties to this cause, nor we by independent research, have been able to find any Florida holdings on this point and, there being a split of authority as indicated throughout the nation, we adopt the reasoning set forth in Gould v. DeBeve, supra.

  10. Scheffler v. Ringhofer

    67 Ill. App. 2d 222 (Ill. App. Ct. 1966)   Cited 12 times

    [4] Aside from statutory interpretation, it is settled law that a landlord has no duty to furnish screens suitable for anything other than keeping out insects. Gasquoine v. Bornstein, 10 Ill. App.2d 423, 135 N.E.2d 121 (1956). The appellant's claim of common law negligence must also fail.