Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractbreach of contracttortdamagesnegligenceappealtrialpleamotionbailmotion to dismiss
contractbreach of contracttortplaintiffdefendantnegligencebail

Related Cases

Pringle v. Valdez, 171 P.3d 624
View Case »
Gilson v. Drees Bros., 19 Wis.2d 252, 120 N.W.2d 63
View Case »
Sanchez-Scott v. Alza Pharmaceuticals, 86 Cal.App.4th 365, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 410, 01 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 520, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 631, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1087
View Case »
Burrell v. Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637, 59 USLW 2642
View Case »
Kiribati Seafood Company, LLC v. Dechert LLP, 478 Mass. 111, 83 N.E.3d 798
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Rajkovich v. Alfred Mossner Co., 199 Ill.App.3d 655, 557 N.E.2d 496, 145 Ill.Dec. 726

Facts

On April 29, 1988, architect Thomas Rajkovich delivered an architectural drawing to Alfred Mossner Company for photographic reproduction, instructing that the drawing should not be folded to avoid creasing. Upon returning to pick up the drawing, Rajkovich discovered it had been creased, rendering it unsuitable for his purposes. He filed a three-count complaint against Mossner, alleging negligence, breach of contract, and res ipsa loquitur, but the trial court dismissed the negligence and res ipsa loquitur claims, leading to this appeal.

Allegations made in the record establish that, on April 29, 1988, plaintiff, an architect, brought an architectural drawing he was preparing for display at an exhibition to defendant, Alfred Mossner Company (Mossner), to engage Mossner's services in making a photographic reproduction.

Issue

Whether the bailor's claims of negligence and res ipsa loquitur should be dismissed based on the characterization of the relationship as purely contractual.

the bailor's negligence and res ipsa loquitur claims should not have been dismissed on basis that bailor's action was exclusively one based on contract

Rule

A bailor may maintain an action against a bailee for breach of contract or in tort if the bailee fails to exercise proper care for the property and it is damaged.

where a bailee for mutual benefit fails to exercise proper care for the property and it is damaged, the bailor may maintain an action against him in the nature of an action in assumpsit for his breach of contract or he may maintain an action sounding in tort.

Analysis

The court analyzed the relationship between the parties and determined that the bailor could plead alternative theories of recovery for damage to the drawing, both in tort and contract. The court found that the bailor's allegations regarding the instructions given to the bailee did not limit his choice of remedies and that the damages alleged were sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.

the allegations respecting plaintiff's instructions cannot be considered more than an explicit statement of Mossner's existing legal obligation. We therefore do not agree that counts I and III should have been dismissed on the basis that plaintiff's action was exclusively one based on contract.

Conclusion

The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the bailor's complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings.

For reasons stated above, we reverse the order of the circuit court dismissing plaintiff's complaint, and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Who won?

The bailor, Thomas Rajkovich, prevailed because the court found that his claims of negligence and res ipsa loquitur were valid and should not have been dismissed.

the bailor, Thomas Rajkovich, prevailed because the court found that his claims of negligence and res ipsa loquitur were valid and should not have been dismissed.

You must be