Pozzie v. Mike Smith, Inc.

16 Citing cases

  1. Balestri v. Terminal Freight Cooperative

    76 Ill. 2d 451 (Ill. 1979)   Cited 64 times
    Affirming the appellate court's judgment reversing the damages award and remanding for a new trial on damages only

    "If you find that the defendant was negligent and that its negligence was a proximate cause of injury to and disability of the plaintiff, you should then find for the plaintiff and his right to recover damages for such injuries and disability is not barred or to be limited in any way by the fact, if you find it to be a fact, that the plaintiff's injury and disability resulted from an aggravation of a pre-existing condition by the occurrence in question nor by reason of the fact, if you find it to be a fact, that the plaintiff because of a pre-existing physical condition was more susceptible to injury than other persons might have been." This instruction, which is not contained in Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Civil (2d ed. 1971) (IPI Civil), is based upon the opinion in Pozzie v. Mike Smith, Inc. (1975), 33 Ill. App.3d 343. In Pozzie, in holding that the refusal of instructions tendered by the plaintiff was error, the appellate court said:

  2. Fettson v. James

    697 N.E.2d 1131 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)   Cited 3 times

    This court, however, has found it to be error for a trial court to allow defendant to probe extensively into a plaintiff's income tax returns. Pozzie v. Mike Smith, Inc., 33 Ill. App.3d 343, 347, 337 N.E.2d 450 (1975). In Cerveny v. American Family Insurance Co., 255 Ill. App.3d 399, 626 N.E.2d 1214, the plaintiff failed to offer any proof of actual past earnings and, instead, implied to the jury through direct testimony that her lost future earnings would be as great as her alleged past earnings.

  3. Balestri v. Highway City Transp., Inc.

    57 Ill. App. 3d 669 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978)   Cited 10 times
    In Balestri v. Highway City Transpor. Inc., 57 Ill. App.3d 669, 672, 373 N.E.2d 689 (1978), aff'd 76 Ill.2d 451, 394 N.E.2d 391, cert denied 444 U.S. 1018, 100 S Ct 671, 62 LEd 2d 648 (1980), an orthopedic surgeon testified that his diagnosis of functional overlay meant that he could find no objective medical justification for plaintiff's pain.

    We disagree. At trial and throughout this appeal plaintiff has relied on Pozzie v. Smith (1975), 33 Ill. App.3d 343, 337 N.E.2d 450, in which the court held that IPI Instruction No. 30.03 did not adequately advise the jury and that the trial court's refusal of plaintiff's tendered instruction left the jury without proper judicial guidance. ( 33 Ill. App.3d 343, 347, 337 N.E.2d 450, 453.)

  4. Gonzalez v. Sea Best, Inc.

    22-CV-62403-ALTMAN/STRAUSS (S.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2024)

    Id.; see also Butera v. Schaefer, 674 N.Y.S.2d 249, 250-51 (N.Y.App.Div. 1998) (reversing lower court's order granting defendant's summary judgment motion where plaintiff suffered injuries after his foot went through the floor of a trailer that defendant provided); Pozzie v. Mike Smith, Inc., 337 N.E.2d 450, 451-54 (Ill.App.Ct. 1975) (directing trial court to enter judgment against defendant where plaintiff suffered injuries when plaintiff's forklift fell through a hole within defendant's trailer); Gibbs v. ShuttleKing, Inc., 162 S.W.3d 603, 613 (Tex. App. 2005) (finding that bus utilized by a transportation company was sufficiently similar to a β€œpremises” despite not constituting real property because defendant used it as an asset in its business). None of these cases offers thorough analysis, much less a binding, conclusive answer to whether a theory of premises liability, and the consequent duty owed to an invitee, may apply to personal property.

  5. Williams v. National Freight, Inc.

    455 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (M.D. Fla. 2006)   Cited 9 times

    In fact, other cases suggest that Plaintiff's claim is viable. See Butera v. Schaefer, 251 A.D.2d 976, (N.Y.App.Div. 1998) (affirming denial of defendant's summary judgment motion where plaintiff was injured when floor of truck trailer gave way underfoot); Pozzie v. Mike Smith, Inc., 337 N.E.2d 450, 452-53 (Ill.App.Ct. 1975) (finding owner of truck trailer was liable for injuries sustained by plaintiff when his forklift fell through a hole in the floor); see also Waters v. Cokcana Carrier, Inc., 171 So. 2d 57, 60 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965) (assuming that plaintiff was a business invitee when he climbed aboard defendant's trailer). Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant breached a duty to him by violating federal trucking regulations.

  6. Benn v. Thomas

    512 N.W.2d 537 (Iowa 1994)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that failure to instruct on "eggshell plaintiff" rule failed to adequately convey applicable principles of tort law for that case

    Moreover, the other jurisdictions that have addressed the issue have concluded that a court's refusal to instruct on the eggshell plaintiff rule constitutes a failure to convey the applicable law. See Priel v. R.E.D., Inc., 392 N.W.2d 65, 69 (N.D. 1986) (stating that instructions must advise the jury that defendant "cannot escape the consequences of its negligence merely because its negligence would not have caused that extent of injury to a normal person"); Pozzie v. Mike Smith, Inc., 33 Ill. App.3d 343, 337 N.E.2d 450, 453 (1975) (stating that the failure of the court to instruct on the eggshell plaintiff rule "left the jury without proper judicial guidance"). To deprive the plaintiff estate of the requested instruction under this record would fail to convey to the jury a central principle of tort liability.

  7. Allers v. Willis

    197 Mont. 499 (Mont. 1982)   Cited 16 times

    The vast majority of jurisdictions have ruled that the prejudicial impact of allowing a jury to receive evidence of a plaintiff's pending workers' compensation claim vastly outweighs the probative value. 77 A.L.R.2d 1154, 1156; 47 A.L.R.3d 234; Pozzie v. Mike Smith, Inc. (1975), 33 Ill. App.3d 343, 337 N.E.2d 450. It has been stated at 77 A.L.R.2d at 1156, that: "Generally, it has been held to constitute error, requiring a reversal or new trial, to bring to the jury's attention the fact that the plaintiff in a personal injury or death action is entitled to workmen's compensation benefits.

  8. Banks v. Advocate Health & Hosp. Corp.

    2021 Ill. App. 191728 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)

    ΒΆ 19 While we acknowledge the tax returns were relevant to Toya's damages claim, defense counsel's repeated inferences of criminal conduct were highly improper. In Pozzie v. Mike Smith, Inc., 33 Ill.App.3d. 343, 346-47 (1975), the trial court allowed defendant's counsel to question plaintiff's claimed tax deductions. This court found that the cross-examination was wholly improper because the cross-examination sought to imply the plaintiff was "dishonest and attempted to cheat the government out of tax revenue."

  9. Wojcik v. City of Chicago

    299 Ill. App. 3d 964 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 41 times
    In Wojcik v. City of Chicago, 299 Ill. App. 3d 964, 979 (1998), we rejected the contention that a trial court errs by permitting cross-examination of an expert about possible alternative causes of injury.

    A tortfeasor is liable for the injuries he causes, even though the injuries may not have occurred but for the peculiar preexisting weaknesses of the injured person. Pozzie v. Mike Smith, Inc., 33 Ill. App.3d 343, 347, 337 N.E.2d 450, 453 (1975). And, evidence of a preexisting condition should be excluded where there is no evidence of a causal connection between the preexisting condition and the current injury. Podoba v. Pyramid Electric, Inc., 281 Ill. App.3d 545, 550-51, 667 N.E.2d 167, 171 (1996).

  10. Cerveny v. American Family Ins. Co.

    255 Ill. App. 3d 399 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)   Cited 12 times
    In Cerveny v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 255 Ill. 3D 399, 411 (1993), the defendant cross-examined the plaintiff on her federal income tax returns concerning the issue of damages.

    " Plaintiff maintains that this is the type of inquiry that we found to be irrelevant and improper in Pozzie v. Mike Smith, Inc. (1975), 33 Ill. App.3d 343, 337 N.E.2d 450. We disagree because we find Pozzie to be distinguishable from the instant case.