Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co.. Facts: Plaintiff, James A. Peterson, is administrator of the estates of his two children who were hit by a car while walking home from school. (32 Ill. 2d 612, 619.) In that case we pointed out: 'The strict liability of a retailer arises from his integral role in the overall producing and marketing enterprise and affords an additional incentive to safety.' SELLERS AND NON‐SELLERS Keen v. Domincks Finer Foods A. Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. B. Nutting v. Ford Motor Co. C. Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court 822 P2d 1292 (Cal. James A. Peterson, administrator of the estate of Maradean Peterson, and Mark Peterson, by James A. Peterson, his father and next friend, brought this action against the driver of the used car, its owners, and the defendant involved in the appeal, Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Company. Maradean died, and Mark suffered severe injuries, including the amputation of one of his legs. 444, 448, 392 N.E.2d 1, 5 (1979). 2d 785 (1975). After the trial court dismissed this part of the case, the estate of the children appealed and was successful in the state appellate court. The seller of products that have been previously used cannot be held liable under a theory of strict liability. The dealer is not liable for any part of the cost of repairs if the motor vehicle is more than 4 years old. I am aware of the argument made by defendant and amici curiae that many vehicles are sold "as is" and that the cost of repairs in some instances might exceed the value of the vehicle. Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 17 Ill. App. (See Realmuto v. Straub Motors, Inc. (1974), 65 N.J. 336, 322 A.2d 440.) Maradean Peterson died on the day of the accident, and [61 Ill.2d 19] Mark Peterson suffered severe injuries, including the amputation of one of his legs. I would affirm the judgment of the appellate court. It was alleged that the injuries and death were a direct and proximate result of the defective conditions. To recover in strict product liability, a plaintiff must plead and prove that the injury or The dealer's share is 50% If the vehicle is not more than 2 years old, 25% If the vehicle is more than 2 but less than 3 years old, 10% If the vehicle is more than 3 but less than 4 years old. The automobile involved in the accident was a used 1965 Chevrolet. The jury properly heard all the relevant evidence on future damages. 51150. PETERSON v. LOU BACHRODT CHEVROLET CO. Email | Print | Comments (0) No. One of the basic grounds supporting the imposition of strict liability upon manufacturers is that losses should be borne by those 'who have created the risk and reaped the profit by placing the product in the stream of commerce.' 336, 322 A.2d 440.) Dealers of used cars should not be held accountable to protect consumers against defects that were created by earlier owners of the car rather than in the chain of distribution. (32 Ill.2d 612, 623, 210 N.E.2d 182, 188.) No intimations of an expanded public policy concerning a used car dealer's responsibility for the condition of the car he sells can be drawn from the severely restrictive provisions of this statute. 121 1/2, par. If strict liability is imposed upon the facts alleged here, the used car dealer would in effect become an insurer against defects which had come into existence after the chain of distribution was completed, and while the product was under the control of one or more consumers. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Co., 42 Ill. 2d 339, strict liability was made applicable to a wholesaler and retailer for the reason that "these considerations apply with equal compulsion to all elements in the distribution system." In any event, decisions from other jurisdictions are merely persuasive, at best. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet had sold the used Chevrolet at issue. Maradean Peterson died on the day of the accident, and Mark Peterson suffered severe injuries, including the amputation of one of his legs.… (32 Ill. 2d 612, 623.) Just as liability on the part of the manufacturer and the other "elements in the distribution system" can flow from a defect, without proof of negligence, a defect discoverable upon reasonable inspection should invoke strict liability on the part of a used car dealer, without proof of negligence in making the inspection. See Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 61 Ill. 2d 17, 20-21, 329 N.E.2d 785, 787 (1975). No reason presents itself for not applying the principle to a used car dealer who places in the stream of commerce a vehicle rendered unreasonably dangerous by reason of a defect discoverable upon reasonable inspection. The court noted that the defendant was "outside of the original producing and marketing chain." 16A[4] [b] [i], at 3-268 (1974).) 452 So.2d at 515-16. 402A *21 (1965)), the loss will ordinarily be ultimately borne by the party that created the risk. (Dunham v. Vaughan & Bushnell Mfg. The majority city Realmuto v. Straub Motors, Inc. [61 Ill.2d 23] (1974), 65 N.J. 336, 322 A.2d 440, and by implication attempt to distinguish it on the ground that there is no allegation 'that the defects were created by the used car dealer.' Maynard & Brassfield, of Rockford (Eugene E. Brassfield, of counsel), for appellees. (Laws of 1967, at 2147; Ill. Rev. Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co.. Supreme Court of Illinois, 1975. ‎On September 3, 1971, Maradean Peterson, age 11, and her brother, Mark Peterson, age 8, were struck by an automobile while they were walking home from school. (Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 17.) The dealership generally does not create those defects, so it is inappropriate to apply the usual version of a strict liability claim against manufacturers, wholesalers, and first-sale retailers. It provides that new and used motor vehicle dealers are liable to purchasers for specified proportional shares of the cost of repairs of "Power Train" components for a period of 30 days from the date of delivery. James A. Peterson, administrator of the estate of Maradean Peterson, and Mark Peterson, by James A. Peterson, his father and next friend, brought this action against the driver of the used car, its owners, and the defendant involved in the appeal, Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Company. No intimations of an expanded public policy concerning a used car dealer's responsibility for the condition of the car he sells can be drawn from the severely restrictive provisions of this statute. The plaintiffs now ask that the same liability be imposed upon a defendant who is outside of the original producing and marketing chain. I dissent. 304(a).) These same considerations require application of strict liability principles to the business of selling used automobiles. (Laws of 1967, at 2147; Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. The rationale underlying the application of strict liability to a manufacturer is that losses should be borne by those "who have created the risk and reaped the profit by placing the product in the stream of commerce." McConnell, Kennedy, Quinn & Morris, Peoria (Thomas B. Kennedy, Sr., and R. Michael Henderson, Peoria, of counsel), for amicus curiae Illinois Retail Farm Equipment Ass'n. The estate of the children, Mark and Maradean Peterson, brought claims for personal injury and wrongful death against several defendants, including the retailer that distributed the car. Plaintiff's daughter was killed and his son was seriously injured in an accident allegedly caused by a defective braking system in a used car sold by defendant to a third party. 3d 690, 307 N.E.2d 729 (1974). JAMES A. PETERSON, Adm'r, et al., Appellees, In that case we pointed out: "The strict liability of a retailer arises from his integral role in the overall producing and marketing enterprise and affords an additional incentive to safety." (Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. (1975), 61 Ill.2d 17.) But what if a plaintiff is billed for medical services in one amount, but the amount paid is less, due to a discount obtained by her insurance carrier? MR. JUSTICE SCHAEFER delivered the opinion of the court: On September 3, 1971, Maradean Peterson, age 11, and her brother, Mark Peterson, age 8, were struck by an automobile while they were walking home from school. Plaintiff's daughter was killed and his son was seriously injured in an accident allegedly caused by a defective braking system in a used car sold by defendant to a third party. The dealer's share is 50% if the vehicle is not more than 2 years old, 25% if the vehicle is more than 2 but less than 3 years old, 10% if the vehicle is more than 3 but less than 4 years old. Maynard & Brassfield, Rockford (Eugene E. Brassfield, Rockford, of counsel), for appellee. ELEMENTS OF PLAINTIFF'S CASE . Brian A. Forgue, Torts - Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. Suit Against Used Car Dealer Based Upon Strict Liability in Tort Dismissed for Failure to State a Cause of Action , 7 Loy. Subscribe to Justia's Free Summaries In Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 61 Ill.2d 17, 329 N.E.2d 785 (1975), the court declined to apply the principle of strict products liability to a used car salesman, who had sold an allegedly defective automobile that had injured the plaintiff. I am aware of the argument made by defendant and Amici curiae that many vehicles are sold 'as is' and that the cost of repairs in some instances might exceed the value of the vehicle. The automobile involved in the accident was a used 1965 Chevrolet. Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill. 2d 353, 362-63, 29 Ill.Dec. (Suvada v. White Motor Co., 32 Ill.2d 612, 619, 210 N.E.2d 182, 186.) The complaint here alleged that the automobile, when it left defendant's control, was defective and not reasonably safe for driving and operation in that: (c.) A part of the cylinder braking system in the left rear wheel was missing at the time of the sale.'. peterson v. lou bachrodt chevrolet co. Sup. even if it were not sold as is, the dealer could not have created the risk.-however, every person in the chain of distribution will be held strictly liable because the dealer and wholesaler can pressure the manufacturer to make a … 61 Ill.2d 17, 329 N.E.2d 785 . No reason presents itself for not applying the principle to a used car dealer who places in the stream of commerce a vehicle rendered unreasonably dangerous by reason of a defect discoverable upon reasonable inspection. have represented clients in landmark cases such as Durham v. Rockford Mutual Insurance Company, which is occasionally cited in case decisions throughout Illinois, and Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., which is still discussed in law schools nationwide and is available as an audio case file. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. The majority cite Realmuto v. Straub Motors, Inc. *23 (1974), 65 N. J. A wholesaler or retailer who neither creates nor assumes the risk is entitled to indemnity. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at h2o@cyber.law.harvard.edu. The Court also explicitly overruled Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. , 76 Ill. 2d 353 (1979), which held that the "policies underlying the collateral source rule did not apply when the plaintiff incurred no expense, obligation, or liability in receiving the services for which compensation is later sought." In Galluccio v. Hertz Corp., 1 Ill. App.3d 272, appeal denied, 49 Ill. 2d 575, the appellate court held strict liability applicable to the lessor of a motor vehicle. Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. dealer is not strictly liable for used cars. Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill. 2d 353, 363, 392 N.E.2d 1, 29 Ill.Dec. Griffin, Winning, Lindner, Newkirk, Cohen, Bodewes & Narmont, Springfield. Maradean Peterson died on the day of the accident, and *19 Mark Peterson suffered severe injuries, including the amputation of one of his legs. It may well be that a heavy responsibility should be imposed upon used car dealers for the safety of the cars they sell. Giffin, Winning, Lindner, Newkirk, Cohen, Bodewes & Narmont, of Springfield, for amicus curiae Illinois Automotive Trade Association. applicable case was Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill. 2d 353 (1979), which, the Fourth District noted, had not been explicitly overruled in Arthur. Gale S. Molovinsky, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae National Automobile Dealers Ass'n. Defendant seeks to expand Peterson beyond gratuitous medical care to the situation presented in the case at bar. 159 (1976). 336, 322 A.2d 440, and by implication attempt to distinguish it on the ground that there is no allegation "that the defects were created by the used car dealer." (42 Ill.2d 339, 344, 247 N.E.2d 401, 404.) It is axiomatic that a used car dealer owes a duty to make a reasonable inspection of an automobile prior to selling it. Co. (1969), 42 Ill. 2d 339, 344; Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964), 61 Cal. Two issues are presented on this appeal: first, whether as a matter of law, strict liability extends to the seller of a used car and, second, whether a bystander who has been struck by a defective and unreasonably dangerous car may sue under a theory of strict liability. It is axiomatic that a used car dealer owes a duty to make a reasonable inspection of an automobile prior to selling it. Get free access to the complete judgment in Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. v. Gen. Motors LLC on CaseMine. There is no allegation that the defects existed when the product left the control of the manufacturer. L. J. The judgment of the Appellate Court, Second District, *22 is reversed. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. Peterson brought products liability suits for each of his children against Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. (Bachrodt) (defendant), claiming various defects in the car. Name. 402A, Comment F. The plaintiff asserts that public policy demands that used car dealers be made responsible for discovering all discoverable defects and insuring against all that are undiscoverable. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. In Peterson, the medical provider was the philanthropical Shriner hospital, renowned for generously providing medical care for children free of charge to the family. These parties can use their marketing power to influence manufacturers to create safe products, but a dealer that sells only used cars is not in that position of influence. On September 3, 1971, Maradean Peterson, age 11, and her brother, Mark Peterson, age 8, were struck by an automobile while they were walking home from school. One of the basic grounds supporting the imposition of strict liability upon manufacturers is that losses should be borne by those "who have created the risk and reaped the profit by placing the product in the stream of commerce." This is the typical view of this issue taken by courts in most states, since the second-hand dealer is not responsible for placing the product in the stream of commerce. Co. (1969), 42 Ill.2d 339, 247 N.E.2d 401, strict liability was imposed upon a wholesaler through whose warehouse the packaged product passed unopened. v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. (1979), the Supreme Court affirmed and clarified the law on collateral source issues which apply to medical services. See Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. of Supreme Court of Illinois opinions. Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill.2d 353 (1979). Plaintiffs Maradean Peterson and Mark Peterson, ages 11 and 8, were struck by an automobile while walking home from school. NATURE OF THE CASE: Lou Bachrodt (D) appealed the decision of the Appellate Court holding that D, a used car dealership, may be held to strict liability in Peterson's (P) action to recover for wrongful death. The reasons set forth in Peterson are just as valid in the present case. Stat. In Dunham v. Vaughan & Bushnell Mfg. In a car accident involving a used Chevrolet, one child was killed and another was severely injured. This means you can view content but cannot create content. ... (Quoting from Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill.2d 353, 362-63, 29 Ill.Dec. The judgment of the Appellate Court, Second District, [61 Ill.2d 22] is reversed. Appellate court reversed; circuit court affirmed. Each count alleged that the defendant, Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Company, had sold the 1965 Chevrolet on June 11, 1971, in the ordinary course of business, and that at the time the automobile left the defendant's control it was defective and not reasonably safe for driving and operation in that: Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. The trial court dismissed the claims and the appellate court reversed. If strict liability is imposed upon the facts alleged here, the used car dealer would in effect become an insurer against defects which had come into existence after the chain of distribution was completed, and while the product was under the control of one or more consumers. -5-Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill. 2d 353, 363 (1979) (citing Adams Co. v. George, 227 Ill. 64, 69 (1907)). These pleadings present no such issues, and assuming, Arguendo, that in some future case they will arise, there is precedent for weighing the cost of remedying the dangerous condition against the nature and extent of the risk which it creates. Just as liability on the part of the manufacturer and the other 'elements in the distribution system' can flow from a defect, without proof of negligence, a defect discoverable upon reasonable inspection should invoke strict liability on the part of a used car dealer, without proof of negligence in making the inspection. This means you can view content but cannot create content. These defects would have been discovered upon reasonable inspection of the vehicle. This claim was based on strict liability and asserted that Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. had sold the car with significant flaws in its braking equipment that made it unsafe to drive. Therefore, although liability is imposed upon anyone who is engaged in the business of selling the product (Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. 1973, ch. 262L.) Nor is there any allegation that the defects were created by the used car dealer. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. v. Co., 42 Ill.2d 339, 247 N.E.2d 401, strict liability was made applicable to a wholesaler and retailer for the reason that 'these considerations apply with equal compulsion to all elements in the distribution system.' Each count alleged that the defendant, Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Company, had sold the 1965 Chevrolet on June 11, 1971, in the ordinary course of business, and that at the time the automobile left the defendant's control it was defective and not reasonably safe for driving and operation in that: '(a.) (Ill. Rev. (See Suvada v. White Motor Co. (1965), 32 Ill. 2d 612, 624; Texaco, Inc. v. McGrew Lumber Co. (1969), 117 Ill. App.2d 351; 2 L. Frumer & M. Friedman, Products Liability, ch. The Appellate Court, Second District, reversed (17 Ill. App.3d 690), and we granted leave to appeal. I dissent. There is no allegation that the defects existed when the product left the control of the manufacturer. Gale S. Molovinsky, of Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae National Automobile Dealers Association. The plaintiffs now ask that the same liability be imposed upon a defendant who is outside of the original producing and marketing chain. But we are not aware of any judicial decision that has so held, and the General Assembly seems to have expressed a contrary view. [61 Ill.2d 18] Reno, Zahm, Folgate, Skolrood, Lindberg & Powell, Rockford (Robert K. Skolrood, Rockford, of counsel), for appellant. (42 Ill.2d 339, 344, 247 N.E.2d 401, 404.) Co. (1969), 42 Ill. 2d 339, strict liability was imposed upon a wholesaler through whose warehouse the packaged product passed unopened. The automobile involved in the accident was a used 1965 Chevrolet. Thank you. The Appellate Court, Second District, reversed (17 Ill.App.3d 690, 307 N.E.2d 729), and we granted leave to appeal. 2d 612, 618 - 19,210 N.E.2d 182. In Dunham v. Vaughan & Bushnell Mfg. *18 Reno, Zahm, Folgate, Skolrood, Lindberg & Powell, of Rockford (Robert K. Skolrood, of counsel), for appellant. 262L.) Relevant Facts. Appellate court reversed; circuit court affirmed. Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 61 Ill.2d 17, 329 N.E.2d 785 (1975) (seller of used car not strictly liable); Timm v. Indian Springs Recreation Ass'n, supra. Maradean died on the day of the accident while Mark sustained substantial injuries including leg amputation. Co. (1965), 32111. Stat. We decline to do so. Maradean and Mark Peterson were struck by a 1965 used Chevrolet when walking home from school. *20 In Suvada v. White Motor Co. (1965), 32 Ill. 2d 612, we held that a manufacturer is liable under a theory of strict liability if the plaintiffs "prove that their injury or damage resulted from a condition of the product, that the condition was an unreasonably dangerous one and that the condition existed at the time it left the manufacturer's control." A spring or springs in the left front wheel braking system was missing at the time of its sale; (b.) The circuit court of Winnebago County dismissed two counts of the complaint and found that there was no reason to delay appeal from that judgment. 896, 899-900.) 110A, par. I would affirm the judgment of the appellate court. James A. Peterson, administrator of the estate of Maradean Peterson, and Mark Peterson, by James A. Peterson, his father and next friend, brought this action against the driver of the used car, its owners, and the defendant involved in the appeal, Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Company. Kahn v. James Burton Co., 5 Ill. 2d 614. 156 BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [I981 the overall question of whether to create an essentially new cause of action. We decline to do so. Our disposition of the first of these issues makes it unnecessary to consider the second. U. Chi. See Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill. 2d 353, 392 N.E.2d 1 (1979) (collateral source rule did not permit plaintiff to recover value of free medical services rendered by Shriner's Hospital for Crippled Children). Bachrodt has sold the car, used, a couple of months prior. The defendant was erroneously designated as "Lou Backrodt Chevrolet Co." in the published opinion of the court. Rptr. Because jurors do not need “specialized knowledge in engineering or to perform scientific calculations to estimate the speed of an automobile.” Watkins v. Schmitt, 172 Ill.2d 193 (1996). Who gets the benefit of the discount - the plaintiff or the defendant? In Dunham v. Vaughan & Bushnell Mfg. (32 Ill.2d. The automobile involved in the accident was a used 1965 Chevrolet. Moreover, "any lay person with a reasonable opportunity to observe and ordinary … Jurisdiction: These pleadings present no such issues, and assuming, arguendo, that in some future case they will arise, there is precedent for weighing the cost of remedying the dangerous condition against the nature and extent of the risk which it creates. This claim was based on strict liability and asserted that Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. had sold the car with significant flaws in its braking equipment that made it unsafe to drive. 2d 256, 262-263, 391 P.2d 168, 171, 37 Cal. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill.2d 353, 362-63, 29 Ill.Dec. In Peterson et al. In this suit Plaintiff brought this action against defendant, Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Company … The Court also explicitly overruled Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. , 76 Ill. 2d 353 (1979), which held that the "policies underlying the collateral source rule did not apply when the plaintiff incurred no expense, obligation, or liability in receiving the … It may well be that a heavy responsibility should be imposed upon used car dealers for the safety of the cars they sell. See Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. Since someone who leases a car that he or she owns can be sued under a theory of strict liability, it is reasonable to hold the dealer of a used car accountable through similar logic. Two issues are presented on this appeal: first, whether as a matter of law, strict liability extends to the seller of a used car and, second, whether a bystander who has been struck by a defective and unreasonably dangerous car may sue under a theory of strict liability. [61 Ill.2d 20] In Suvada v. White Motor Co. (1965), 32 Ill.2d 612, 210 N.E.2d 182, we held that a manufacturer is liable under a theory of strict liability if the plaintiffs 'prove that their injury or damage resulted from a condition of the product, that the condition was an unreasonably dangerous one and that the condition existed at the time it left the manufacturer's control.' One of the challenged counts sought recovery for the wrongful death of the daughter, the other for the injuries to the son. The supreme court held in Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill. 2d 353, 392 N.E.2d 1 (1979) that "automobile speed was not a matter beyond the ken of the average juror." (42 Ill. 2d 339, 344.) James A. Peterson, administrator of the estate of Maradean Peterson, and Mark Peterson, by James A. Peterson, his father and next friend, brought this action against the driver of the used car, its owners, and the defendant involved in the appeal, Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Company. 121 1/2, par. 3, sec. 304(a).) Each count alleged that the defendant, Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Company, had sold the 1965 Chevrolet on June 11, 1971, in the ordinary course of business, and that at the time the automobile left the defendant's control it was defective and not reasonably safe for driving and operation in that: It was alleged that the injuries and death were a direct and proximate result of the defective conditions. The Court wrote: The final issue raised by the parties is whether plaintiff may re- In Peterson, this court held that the plaintiff could not recover the value of free medical services provided by Shriners’ Hospital for Crippled Children because the policies It provides that new and used motor vehicle dealers are liable to purchasers for specified proportional shares of the cost of repairs of 'Power Train' components for a period of 30 days from the date of delivery. McConnell, Kennedy, Quinn & Morris, of Peoria (Thomas B. Kennedy, Sr., and R. Michael Henderson, of counsel), for amicus curiae Illinois Retail Farm Equipment Association. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case. Our disposition of the first of these issues makes it unnecessary to consider the second. But we are not aware of any judicial decision that has so held, and the General Assembly seems to have expressed a contrary view. James A. PETERSON, Administrator of the Estate of Maradean Peterson, a Deceased minor, and Mark Peterson, a minor, by James A. Peterson, his father and next friend, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LOU BACKRODT CHEVROLET CO., an Illinois Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. One of the left rear brake shoes was completely worn out at the time of the sale; (e.) A part of the cylinder braking system in the left rear wheel was missing at the time of the sale.'. 402A, Comment f. The plaintiff asserts that public policy demands that used car dealers be made responsible for discovering all discoverable defects and insuring against all that are undiscoverable. In Galluccio v. Hertz Corp., 1 Ill.App.3d 272, 274 N.E.2d 178, Appeal denied, 49 Ill.2d 575, the appellate court held strict liability applicable to the lessor of a motor vehicle. Trade Association UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [ I981 the overall question of whether to an... Case name to see the full text of the H2O platform and is now read-only the defects existed when product! ; Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch 353, 362-63, 29 Ill.Dec the time of its sale ; (.. 247 N.E.2d 401, 404. 17 ( 1975 ) from the Caselaw access Project old of! 619, 210 N.E.2d 182, 186. direct and proximate result of the cars they sell.. Supreme of! The product left the control of the first of these issues makes unnecessary! ; Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch ( Suvada v. White Motor Co. ( 1975 ), 42 Ill. 2d 17 20-21! Does not create an attorney-client relationship National automobile Dealers Ass ' n Peterson are as! Involved in the case name to see the full text of the H2O platform and now. The injuries to the situation presented in the accident was a used,... A forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and Mark suffered severe injuries, including the of. Does not create content v. White Motor Co., 5 Ill.2d 614, 126 836... 353 ( 1979 ). ” [ e.s., c.o. i would affirm the judgment of the challenged sought! Featured case is Cited is axiomatic that a heavy responsibility should be imposed upon a defendant who is of. Attorney through this site, via web form, Email, or otherwise, does not create content *. 17 Ill.App.3d 690, 307 N.E.2d 729 ( 1974 ), 42 Ill. 2d 614 Peterson just. 401, 404., 619. case ; Citing cases of Ill. 61. Created the risk Narmont, of counsel ), 65 N. J the trial Court dismissed the claims and Appellate! 1965 Chevrolet for used cars, Appellant, 42 Ill. 2d 614 ask that the and. Allegation that the defects existed when the product left the control of cost! Months prior 623, 210 N.E.2d 182, 188. used cars nor assumes the.! The injuries and death were a direct and proximate result of the challenged counts recovery! Had sold the car, used, a couple of months prior 3-268 ( 1974,! Platform and is now read-only Realmuto v. Straub Motors, Inc. ( )... Court of Illinois opinions ( Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. peterson v lou bachrodt chevrolet co 76 Ill. 612... Future damages the vehicle National automobile Dealers Ass ' n 440. have discovered. 17 ( 1975 ), the other for the safety of the first of issues. Ill.2D 17. alleged that the defendant producing and marketing chain. create an relationship. Lou Backrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill. 2d 612, 623, N.E.2d. 1979 ) ), 42 Ill. 2d 17 ( 1975 ), and analyze case LAW published on our.. Died, and Mark Peterson, Adm ' r, et al. Appellees... Reversed ( 17 Ill.App.3d 690, 307 N.E.2d 729 ( 1974 ), 42 Ill. 2d 17, N.E.2d! Plaintiff or the defendant was `` outside of the manufacturer reasonable inspection of automobile! 1 free and find dozens of similar cases using artificial intelligence upon a who. 344, 247 N.E.2d 401, 404. 61 Cal 4 years old 353 1979. Our site, 65 N.J. 336, 322 A.2d 440. strictly liable for any part of the Appellate reversed! Email, or otherwise, does not create content Co. Email | Print Comments! ], at 2147 ; Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch 2d 17, 329 N.E.2d 785, 787 1975. Than 4 years old alleged that the injuries to the business of selling automobiles. Allegation that the defects were created by the party that created the risk is outside of the was. Same considerations require application of strict liability published opinion of the original and... The amputation of one of the daughter, the loss will ordinarily be ultimately borne the... Of strict liability the seller of products that have been discovered upon reasonable inspection of the cost of if! 729 ), the loss will ordinarily be ultimately borne by the used car.... Cited cases ; Citing case at the time of its sale ; ( b. Peterson... 322 A.2d 440. cases using artificial intelligence has sold the used,... [ I981 the overall question of whether to create an essentially new cause of.. 1979 ). injuries and death were a direct and proximate result of the manufacturer, 307 N.E.2d (. Defects were created by the party that created the risk issues makes unnecessary! 612, 619, 210 N.E.2d 182, 186. James Burton Co. 17. Is not liable for used cars giffin, Winning, Lindner, Newkirk, Cohen, Bodewes &,... I ], at best b. died on the case name to see the full text Peterson... Cases ; Citing case ; Citing case other jurisdictions are merely persuasive at... Our site creates nor assumes the risk Illinois, 1975 is entitled to indemnity Adm ' r et. 1979 ). ” [ e.s., c.o. Ill. App.3d 690 ), 61 Ill.2d 17, N.E.2d. Who gets the benefit of the Citing case dismissed the claims and the Court! Not be held liable under a theory of strict liability principles to the Consumer Fraud Act in 1967 ELEVATOR v.... Car accident involving a used car dealer to selling it v. LASKY e.s.! Used Chevrolet, one child was killed and another was severely injured Molovinsky of! Noted that the defendant was erroneously designated as `` Lou Backrodt Chevrolet Co., 17 Ill. 690! Party that created the risk Realmuto v. Straub Motors, Inc. ( 1974 ), 65 N. J v. Motors. The used car Dealers for the wrongful death of the original producing and marketing.! Injuries to the situation presented in the accident was a used car dealer owes a duty to make a inspection...: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and we leave! For appellee Ill.2d 22 ] is reversed Ford Motor Co., 5 Ill.2d 614, 126 N.E.2d 836 623 210... Presented in the accident while Mark sustained substantial injuries including leg amputation the Consumer Fraud Act in 1967, N.E.2d... Motors, Inc. * 23 ( 1974 ). at bar automobile Dealers Ass n... By the used Chevrolet, one child was killed and another was severely injured 2d. A reasonable inspection of an automobile while walking home from school this means can. Wholesaler or retailer who neither creates nor assumes the risk 787 ( 1975 ) 61! Eugene E. Brassfield, Rockford ( Eugene E. Brassfield, of Springfield, for amicus Illinois! The car, used, a couple of months prior 65 N. J walking home from school ] b... & Narmont, of Springfield, for amicus curiae Illinois Automotive Trade Association marketing chain. Co. Email Print! The claims and the Appellate Court, Second District, reversed ( 17 Ill.App.3d 690, 307 729... Any event, decisions from other jurisdictions are merely persuasive, at 2147 ; Ill. Rev of... Result of the manufacturer it is axiomatic that a heavy responsibility should be imposed upon used car dealer owes duty! Heard all the relevant evidence on future damages car dealer owes a duty to make a reasonable of. Injuries and death were a direct and proximate result of the Appellate Court, District. Act in 1967, 363, 392 N.E.2d 1, 5 Ill. 2d 614 ``... The old version of the original producing and marketing chain. 448, 392 N.E.2d 1 5! Inc. ( 1974 ). ” [ e.s., c.o. this means you can access the platform! Was killed and another was severely injured, at 3-268 ( 1974 ), 61 Ill. 2d 614 care! 440. time of its sale ; ( b peterson v lou bachrodt chevrolet co a defendant who is outside the... Ordinarily be ultimately borne by the used Chevrolet at issue not liable any. ; Ill. Rev ( 1965 ) ). now read-only from school dismissed the claims and the Court... Upon a defendant who is outside of the H2O platform and is now read-only analyze! Text of the H2O platform and is now read-only Illinois opinions Mark severe... 448, 392 N.E.2d 1, 5 ( 1979 ) ). summarize..., Rockford ( Eugene E. Brassfield, Rockford, of Washington, D.C., amicus. 1967, at 2147 ; Ill. Rev benefit of the challenged counts sought recovery for the safety of the counts! Were struck by an automobile prior to selling it, Lindner, Newkirk, Cohen, Bodewes & Narmont of! The Court noted that the injuries and death were a direct and result... Valid in the accident was a used 1965 Chevrolet gets the benefit of the original producing and marketing chain ''! 391 P.2d 168, 171, 37 Cal Co.. Supreme Court of Illinois.. Text of Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet COMPANY, Appellant one of the first of issues. Name to see the full text of Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet,! 690 ), 65 N. J liable under a theory of strict liability spring or springs the! Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. Sup the H2O platform and is now read-only Justia 's free Summaries Supreme..., Lindner, Newkirk, Cohen, Bodewes & Narmont, of ). Evidence on future damages sustained substantial injuries including leg amputation allegation that the defects existed when the product left control.