Daniels v. Corrigan

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 1st District Appellate » 2008 » Daniels v. Corrigan

Daniels v. Corrigan

State: Illinois

Court: 1st District Appellate

Docket No: 1-06-1256 Rel

Case Date: 03/31/2008

Preview:FOURTH DIVISION March 31, 2008

1-06-1256

ERIK T. DANIELS,

) ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) PATTON CORRIGAN; YELLOW CAB ) MANAGEMENT, INC., d/b/a Yellow Cab ) Company; SHAHZAD MAHLIK; YELLOW ) CAB COMPANY; YELLOW CAB AFFILIATION,) INC.; YELLOWONE, LLC; YELLOWTWO, LLC; ) CRA CAB COMPANY, d/b/a Metro Yellow; ) YELLOW CAPITAL CORPORATION; YELLOW ) CAB SERVICES OF AMERICA; YELLOW ) HOLDINGS INC.; TRANSIT CAPITAL, LLC; ) TRANSIT FUNDING GROUP; and LOWER ) CROSS CORPORATION, ) ) Defendants-Appellees ) ) (American Country Insurance Company; Stamford ) Capital Group; the Dorothy Corrigan Trust; ) Muhammed Atif; and Nana Dada, Inc., ) ) Defendants) )

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division No. 01 L 9115 Honorable Jennifer Duncan-Brice, Judge Presiding

JUSTICE MURPHY delivers the opinion of the court: Plaintiff, Erik T. Daniels, was injured when the car he was driving was struck by a Yellow Cab driven by Shahzad Malik and owned by Nana Dada, Inc. Plaintiff filed a negligence suit

1-06-1256 against Malik, Nana Dada, and its owner, Muhammed Atif. He also filed suit against, inter alia, Patton Corrigan, Yellow Cab Affiliation, YellowOne, YellowTwo, CRA Cab, f/k/a Yellow Cab Company, Transit Capital, and Transit Funding Group. These defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, finding that defendants did not control Nana Dada or the operation of the cab at the time of the accident. I. BACKGROUND On July 7, 2001, plaintiff was injured in an accident with a taxicab owned by Nana Dada and driven by Malik, who leased the cab from Nana Dada. Nana Dada carried $350,000 of liability coverage, the minimum required by the City of Chicago. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging negligence under theories of joint venture, vicarious liability, and alter ego. According to the complaint, the City of Chicago amended the Chicago Municipal Code to limit the number of taxicab licenses, or medallions, that a single entity could own to 25% of the outstanding medallions. The complaint further alleged that even though Yellow Cab Company was required to divest itself of a number of medallions as a result of this amendment, it formed a network of corporations that allowed it to maintain control over the medallions it sold, including medallion number 1222, which Nana Dada later purchased. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment; the evidence the parties submitted in support of their respective positions established the following. A. Corporate Defendants In 1997, Yellow Cab Company sold its medallions to YellowOne and YellowTwo. It sold the name, colors, and dispatch rights to Yellow Cab Management. In 1999, Yellow Cab

-2-

1-06-1256 Company changed its name to CRA Cab Company. CRA owns a number of vehicles that are leased to Yellow Cab Management and to which a medallion owned by YellowOne or YellowTwo would be affixed. A City of Chicago ordinance requires all medallion holders to be affiliated with an affiliation licensed by the City. Chicago Municipal Code

Download Daniels v. Corrigan.pdf