• Messa (P) V. Sullivan & Keyman’s Club (D, a) Essay
1750 Words7 Pages
• Messa (P) v. Sullivan & Keyman’s club (D, A)
Citation: what court or reporters
• Court: Appellate Ct of IL, First District, First Division
• Cited as: 61 Ill.App. 2s 386, 209 N.E. 2d 872
• Judge Burman
• P suffered injury at the Keyman’s Club bldg, Chicago: 1st and 2nd fl has many stores (bowling alley, barber shop, acocktail lounge, banquet and meeting rooms), 3rd fl for a labor union office, and 4th fl empty. 5th fl is residence for Sullivans and no other use on the 5th fl. The D’s apt has safe, furniture, personal property, 3-year old German Shepherd for safe-keeping of the club’s property in the apt.
• There are signs on the exterior and on a bldg directory in the lobby.
• No…show more content… P missed to see the sign as the door was heavy and couldn’t see the sign.
• P’s exhibit: pictures of the wounds: right side leg and right arm (left holes) and couldn’t sleep for two weeks.
• D’s statement: P did not look at the directory, the sign is big and height is right for the P to notice (thirty inch high sign warning of the presence of vicious dogs was posted on this manually operated door so that the bottom of the sign was about three and one-half to four feet from the floor.)
• D admitted that no sign in the elevator itself regarding vicious dogs and that the manually operated elevator door on the fifth floor could be locked by a key, but that it was unlocked on the day of the occurrence.
Procedural history (summary of case movement, e.g. courts procedure and result)
• P (Betty Messa) brought this action against D (James Sullivan, Helen Sullivan and the Keyman's Club) to recover damages for the bodily injuries which she sustained as the result of being bitten by the defendants' dog. The complaint was based on two theories: first, a common law action for the keeping of a vicious animal and, second, an action based on what is commonly known as the "Dog Bite Statute" (Ill. Rev Stats 1963, c 8, § 12d).
• The trial court held for the defendants because he found that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. No appeal has been taken from the judgment entered on that issue. [No opinion issued from this court]
• On the statutory count, however,