Luna v. Pizzas by Marchelloni

6 Citing cases

  1. Mroz v. Waste Management of Illinois, Inc.

    286 Ill. App. 3d 544 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)   Cited 2 times

    The parties do not dispute that, under common law, a motorist typically owes no duty to signal or warn another driver as to whether it is safe to proceed. See Luna v. Pizzas by Marchelloni, 279 Ill. App.3d 402, 664 N.E.2d 1112 (1996). However, Illinois courts have recognized that, even in the absence of a duty imposed by law, one may assume a duty where she gratuitously renders services to another.

  2. Thomas v. United States

    19-cv-1184-RJD (S.D. Ill. Oct. 18, 2021)

    Under Illinois law, a motorist typically owes no duty to signal or warn another driver as to whether it is safe to proceed. Mroz v. Waste Management of Ill., Inc., 286 Ill.App.3d 544 (Ill.App.Ct. 1997) (citing Luna v. Pizzas by Marchelloni, 279 Ill.App.3d 402 (Ill.App.Ct. 1996)). However, Illinois courts have recognized that a motorist can voluntarily assume a duty where she gratuitously renders services to another.

  3. Cleeton v. Siu Healthcare, Inc.

    2021 Ill. App. 4th 200490 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)

    Bogenberger v. Pi Kappa Alpha Corp., 2018 IL 120951, ¶ 21, 104 N.E.3d 1110. ¶ 36 Citing Luna v. Pizzas by Marchelloni, 279 Ill.App.3d 402, 404, 664 N.E.2d 1112, 1114 (1996), plaintiff notes a person can be liable for negligent performance of a voluntary undertaking. "Pursuant to the voluntary undertaking theory of liability, one who gratuitously renders services to another is subj ect to liability for bodily harm caused to the other by one's failure to exercise due care or 'such competence and skill as [one] possesses.'"

  4. Cleeton v. SIU Healthcare, Inc.

    2021 Ill. App. 4th 200490 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)

    Bogenberger v. Pi Kappa Alpha Corp., 2018 IL 120951, ¶ 21, 104 N.E.3d 1110. ¶ 37 Citing Luna v. Pizzas By Marchelloni, 279 Ill.App.3d 402, 404, 664 N.E.2d 1112, 1114 (1996), plaintiff notes a person can be liable for negligent performance of a voluntary undertaking. "Pursuant to the voluntary undertaking theory of liability, one who gratuitously renders services to another is subject to liability for bodily harm caused to the other by one's failure to exercise due care or such competence and skill as [one] possesses."

  5. Gilmer v. Ellington

    159 Cal.App.4th 190 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 25 times
    In Gilmer, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th 190, the defendant was in the number two lane, heading in the same direction as the plaintiff, who was further back, in the number one lane.

    We simply do not believe that the instant bus driver's act of common courtesy should be transformed into a tort thereby giving the plaintiff license to proceed across an intersection against a warning light and without taking any precautions of her own." ( Id., 636 N.E.2d at p. 1234; but see Luna v. Pizzas by Marchelloni (1996) 279 Ill.App.3d 402 [216 Ill.Dec. 184, 664 N.E.2d 1112, 1114-1115] [" Diaz does not stand for the broad proposition that signaling drivers, as a matter of law, may never assume a duty to act carefully when voluntarily instructing pedestrians or other motorists."].) In Wille v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. (La.Ct.App. 1975) 320 So.2d 288, a bus driver indicated to a 13-year-old girl who was waiting at a crosswalk to cross the street in front of the bus from which she had disembarked and which was stopped in the lane closest to the curb; the girl crossed safely in front of the bus but was hit by a car traveling in the lane next to the bus.

  6. Antol v. Chavez-Pereda

    284 Ill. App. 3d 561 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996)   Cited 19 times
    In Antol, a negligence case, the jury allocated 60% of liability to one defendant, the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), and 40% to the other defendant.

    See Diaz v. Krob, 264 Ill. App.3d 97, 636 N.E.2d 1234 (1994) (no duty arose where bus driver waved adult pedestrian, with no obvious impairments, through intersection). But cf. Luna v. Pizzas by Marchelloni, 279 Ill. App.3d 402, 664 N.E.2d 1112 (1996) (defendant motorist under no affirmative duty to signal plaintiff that it was safe to make a left turn, but having voluntarily undertaken to signal, defendant became obligated to do so with care and may be held liable for injuries proximately caused by the lack of care). During the jury instruction conference, a discussion was held off the record, and for reasons not subsequently specified by the trial court, plaintiff's instruction on gratuitous undertakings was refused.