Hall v. Gerdes

3 Citing cases

  1. Jolley v. Chicago Thoroughbred Enterprises, Inc.

    275 F. Supp. 325 (N.D. Ill. 1967)   Cited 1 times

    " In Hall v. Gerdes, [68] Ill.App[2d 119], 215 N.E.2d 8 (1966) it was held that the doctrine of assumption of risk is applicable only to cases arising between master and servant and we there referred to the case of Hensley v. Hensley, 62 Ill.App.2d 252, 210 N.E. 2d 568 (1965). Hensley has an extended discussion of the application of assumption of risk. It is clear here that there was not in existence a master and servant relationship. ( 70 Ill. App.2d at 386-387, 217 N.E.2d at 127)

  2. Lahman v. Gould

    82 Ill. App. 2d 220 (Ill. App. Ct. 1967)   Cited 13 times

    documentary matter, is not challenged by any of the parties to these proceedings as not representing all the evidence respectively offered in support of the merits or substantive issues involved; (2) the proffered complaint was not of sufficient substance or relevance to reopen the hearings on the merits or to have the cause to be reheard on the merits; and (3) the filing of the motion by the plaintiff after the master's report had been filed (some nine years after the filing of the original complaint) came too late to allow the filing of the amended and supplemental complaint. [1, 2] It is clearly the law in this state that the granting or denying of an amendment to the pleadings is a matter for the discretion of the trial court whose ruling will not be disturbed on review, absent a clear showing of abuse of that discretion. Deasey v. City of Chicago, 412 Ill. 151, 105 N.E.2d 727; Old Salem Chautauqua Ass'n v. Illinois Dist. Council of Assembly of God, 13 Ill.2d 258, 148 N.E.2d 777; Hall v. Gerdes, 68 Ill. App.2d 119, 215 N.E.2d 8. The test to be applied in determining whether the exercise of discretion with respect to the allowance of an amendment of the pleadings was proper, is whether it furthers the ends of justice. Bowman v. County of Lake, 29 Ill.2d 268, 193 N.E.2d 833.

  3. Fosen v. Odell Grain Coal Co.

    217 N.E.2d 126 (Ill. App. Ct. 1966)   Cited 1 times

    This action by the trial court was not error. [2] In Hall v. Gerdes, 68 Ill. App.2d 119, 215 N.E.2d 8 (1966), it was held that the doctrine of assumption of the risk is applicable only to cases arising between master and servant and we there referred to the case of Hensley v. Hensley, 62 Ill. App.2d 252, 210 N.E.2d 568 (1965). Hensley has an extended discussion of the application of assumption of risk. It is clear here that there was not in existence a master-and-servant relationship.