Brdar v. Cottrell

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 5th District Appellate » 2007 » Brdar v. Cottrell

Brdar v. Cottrell

State: Illinois

Court: 5th District Appellate

Docket No: 5-04-0415 Rel

Case Date: 03/27/2007

Preview:Rule 23 order filed February 13, 2007; Motion to publish granted March 27, 2007.

NO. 5-04-0415 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIFTH DISTRICT ________________________________________________________________________ CARL BRDAR and VICKY BRDAR, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiffs-Appellees and Cross-Appellants, ) Madison County. ) v. ) ) COTTRELL, INC., ) ) Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, ) ) and ) ) CASSENS & SONS, INC.; CASSENS CORPORATION; ) No. 00-L-181 UNKNOWN COMMERCIAL LESSORS IN THE ) CASSENS FAMILY; UNKNOWN CHAIN AND ) RATCHET COMPONENT DISTRIBUTORS AND ) MANUFACTURERS; DAIMLERCHRYSLER ) CORPORATION, f/k/a CHRYSLER CORPORATION; ) and GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, ) ) Defendants. ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ) COTTRELL, INC., ) ) Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) C.F. BENDER and VULCAN CHAIN CORPORATION, ) ) Third-Party Defendants-Appellees, ) ) and ) ) CASSENS TRANSPORT COMPANY, ) Honorable ) A. A. Matoesian, Third-Party Defendant. ) Judge, presiding. ________________________________________________________________________

1

JUSTICE CHAPMAN delivered the opinion of the court: The defendant cargo trailer manufacturer appeals a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, a truck driver and his wife, for injuries the driver sustained when a chain broke while he was attempting to tie down an automobile to a cargo trailer. The defendant argues that the court erred and abused its discretion by (1) denying its motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens, (2) denying a motion to strike the plaintiffs' disclosure of an expert witness and allowing her to testify, (3) admitting certain documents into evidence, (4) refusing to give two of its proffered jury instructions, and (5) dismissing its third-party complaint seeking contribution from two potential chain distributors on the basis of the statute of limitations. The plaintiffs cross-appeal, arguing that (1) they are entitled to a new trial on loss-ofconsortium and punitive damages and (2) the court abused its discretion in denying their motion for expert witness rebuttal costs. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. I. BACKGROUND Defendant Cottrell, Inc. (Cottrell), manufactures cargo trailers that are used for hauling automobiles. Automobiles are tied down to the cargo trailers using a chain-andratchet system attached to the trailers. One company that purchases cargo trailers from Cottrell is third-party defendant Cassens Transport Company (Cassens Transport). Plaintiff Carl Brdar began working as a truck driver hauling cars for Cassens Transport in 1995. He was based at the company's Smyrna, Tennessee, facility. On May 21, 1999, Carl Brdar was loading Dodge Durangos onto a Cottrell trailer in Newark, Delaware, when the chain broke. As a result, Brdar injured his neck and shoulder. A key issue in the resulting lawsuit was what caused the chain to break

Download Brdar v. Cottrell.pdf