The court may draw inferences from undisputed facts; however, if reasonable persons could draw divergent inferences from those facts, the motion for summary judgment should be denied, and the trier of fact should decide the issue. Martinez v. Mobil Oil Corp. , 296 Ill. App. 3d 607, 611, 230 Ill.Dec. 670, 694 N.E.2d 639 (1998). "Although the use of a summary judgment procedure is encouraged as an aid in expeditious disposition of a lawsuit, it is a drastic means of disposing of litigation and should only be allowed when the right of the moving party is clear and free from doubt."
The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants. When reviewing a trial court's order of summary judgment, the only issue on appeal is whether the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Martinez v. Mobil Oil Corp., 296 Ill. App.3d 607, 611, 694 N.E.2d 639 (1998). In all cases involving summary judgment, we review the evidence in the record de novo.
BJB's promise and then refusal to pay was the cause of Ring not being paid. Moreover, whether causation exists is a question of fact. Martinez v. Mobil Oil Corp., 296 Ill. App. 3d 607, 614 (1998). The jury's verdict answered that question as it heard the evidence and concluded that, as a result of BJB's actions, BJB proximately caused Ring's damages.
Moreover, this testimony allowed an inference that Taurus or Maryville's staff would have been alerted to the existence of the fire by the chiming in sufficient time to allow escape, had there been a heat detector in the TV room's bathroom, which was the origin of the fire, and that the failure to place a heat detector in that room therefore caused, as a matter of fact, Taurus' injuries and Emmanuel's death. See Martinez v. Mobil Oil Corp., 296 Ill. App. 3d 607, 614 (1998) (stating that issues of causation are generally for the jury). That testimony therefore precluded the entry of summary judgment for Maryville. Thus, our core determination must focus on whether the circuit court erred in choosing not to acknowledge the existence and applicability of section 13-196-240 of the Code based on plaintiffs' failure to cite to that section.