[DOWNLOAD] "Moore v. Jewel Tea Co." by Supreme Court of Illinois # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Moore v. Jewel Tea Co.
- Author : Supreme Court of Illinois
- Release Date : January 29, 1970
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 66 KB
Description
On November 22, 1959, Frances L. Moore sustained loss of sight in both eyes as the result of the explosion of a can of Drano,
a product used to open clogged drains, which she had purchased the day before at a Jewel Tea store. Joined by her husband,
Donald G. Moore, whose cause of action arose out of the marital relationship, she subsequently brought suit for damages against
Jewel Tea; Heekin Can Company, manufacturer of the container; The Drackett Company (Drackett), the manufacturer of Drano;
and The Drackett Products Company (Products), the latter, as admitted in the joint answer of the two companies to the complaint
on which the cause was tried, being a wholly owned subsidiary of Drackett through which its products were sold. After an extended
trial, judgment was entered against Drackett and Products on jury verdicts which awarded $900,000 in compensatory damages
to Mrs. Moore, $20,000 to Donald G. Moore, and an additional $10,000 in punitive damages to Mrs. Moore. By other verdicts,
defendants Jewel Tea and Heekin Can were found not liable. On separate appeals by Drackett and Products to the appellate court,
in whose opinion the facts and circumstances of trial may be found in greater detail, the judgment was affirmed. (Moore v.
Jewel Tea Co., 116 Ill. App.2d 109.) We have granted and consolidated separate petitions for leave to appeal to this court
largely to consider attacks of defendants which center on the opinion of the appellate court. It may be said at the outset that we are in basic accord with the trial and appellate courts insofar as they found and concluded:
That the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts against these defendants; that the cause was, despite the separate
appeals, litigated as if the Drackett companies were a single entity; that the theory of res ipsa loquitur was properly submitted
to the jury; and that it was proper to permit plaintiffs' allegations of wilful and wanton conduct to remain in the case.
Further, unless otherwise treated upon herein, we find no reason to disagree with the appellate court's disposition of errors
claimed to have occurred in respect to the admission or refusal of evidence by the trial court, or with its determination
that the argument of plaintiffs' counsel did not exceed the bounds of propriety. As to such matters we see no useful purpose
or compelling necessity which would justify a repetition of the facts, authorities and judicial reasoning which support the
judgment of the appellate court. Accordingly, we shall confine ourselves principally to those issues which defendants advance
as "arising primarily from the decision of the Appellate Court."