Peterson v. Campbell

3 Citing cases

  1. Haist v. Wu

    235 Ill. App. 3d 799 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Haist, the appellate court inferred that the plaintiff would have sought medical help for his wife sooner if the defendant doctor had communicated the results of an ultrasound which indicated that the plaintiff's wife had an ectopic pregnancy rather than a miscarriage.

    Plaintiff's second contention is that the court erred in not granting a directed verdict on the issue of the contributory negligence of the decedent's husband. Plaintiff argues that to totally bar recovery, contributory negligence must be substantial, citing Peterson v. Campbell (1982), 105 Ill. App.3d 992, 434 N.E.2d 1169, and that the alleged negligence of the decedent's husband in failing to get help for his wife on Saturday morning does not rise to that level. As a result, plaintiff urges that the question should not have gone to the jury but rather that the court should have directed a verdict in his favor.

  2. Little v. Economy Preferred Insurance Co.

    675 N.E.2d 1048 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)   Cited 1 times

    In our practice prior to Alvis v. Ribar, 85 Ill.2d 1, 421 N.E.2d 886 (1981), and comparative fault, it was the duty of the plaintiff to plead and prove freedom from contributory negligence. Peterson v. Campbell, 105 Ill. App.3d 992, 434 N.E.2d 1169 (1982). With the advent of comparative fault, contributory negligence became an affirmative defense for defendant to plead and prove.

  3. Smith v. Delvin

    151 Ariz. 481 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 1 times

    Nor do I believe a plaintiff is required to be such a "`super-perfect' human." Peterson v. Campbell, 105 Ill. App.3d 992, 997, 61 Ill.Dec. 572, 575, 434 N.E.2d 1169, 1172 (1982). An inference of Smith's negligence must be predicated on a showing that (1) she contributed to the accident by failing to keep a proper lookout and (2) she had sufficient time and room to avoid the collision.