Source: https://britpoptarts.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/paralegal-discussion-2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 17:43:14+00:00

Document:
A rising classical-music star is running late for a performance. He is carrying his guitar with him. Hailing a cab he arrives at the Symphonic Hall. Quickly paying the driver, he grabs the strap of the guitar case and starts to exit the cab. The strap catches on the door, which slams shut. The cab immediately moves on to the next fare. The guitarist is yanked off his feet and dragged half a block, still holding the strap of the guitar case. The strap breaks, the cab keeps going, and the guitarist is hit by another car. With two badly broken arms, one broken leg, few broken ribs, and a concussion, he is taken to the hospital. Who is liable for the musician’s injuries? The cab driver, the second driver, both, or neither? Discuss your answer, assuming jurisdiction in Illinois.
The musician has grounds for a personal injury suit against both drivers, who appear to both be negligent given the few details we have at hand to review. The musician, if his instrument is destroyed or damaged, may be able to recover for it, as well being awarded damages to cover pain and suffering, loss of wages / potential future income, medical and doctor bills, medication and rehabilitation expenses (if any), and so forth. Both drivers were irresponsible (I find it difficult to comprehend how a reasonably alert driver would fail to notice and avoid running over a grown man being dragged by a taxi cab along the street; there are probably details I am not privy to that would explain how that happened).
The taxi driver is responsible for his part in the musician’s injuries and damage to his instrument (if any). He is not likely to be considered responsible for injuries that the second vehicle caused independently, but for placing the musician into the path of the second vehicle.
There are a number of Illinois-based taxi-related cases where cab drivers failed to park in areas where it was safe for passengers to disembark, or where cab drivers attempted to drive off when passengers had clothing caught in cab doors. Generally, the passenger who alleges injury prevails.
The second driver is not likely to escape being sued. (As an example, a good driver can nevertheless be involved in an accident if another car pushes his or her car into an existing collision. Georgia law will still cite that driver with “following too closely”: it is a quirk of Georgia law that if you rear-end another car, even if you yourself were at a dead stop and are rear-ended and pushed forward, you are liable.) The second driver still injured the musician, and even if fault is slightly mitigated because of the taxi driver’s negligence, the second driver still has to be held responsible for not adequately anticipating potential road hazards–and perhaps for Illinois’ version of “following too closely”–as s/he failed to see the musician in the roadway until it was too late.
1. Warner Klettke v. Checker Cab Company, Inc. and Joseph Weglarz, 26 Ill.App.2d 341 (June 29, 1960).
2. Lillian De Bello v. Checker Cab Company, Inc., 8 Ill.App.3d 401 (Oct. 20, 1972).
3. Angela Shanowat, as Administratrix of the Estate of Elizabeth Shanowat, Deceased, and Beverly Shanowat, a minor v. Checker Cab Company, Inc., 48 Ill.App.2d 81 (April 22, 1964).
4. Pauline Blitz v. Checker Cab Company, Inc., 8 Ill.App.3d 361 (Oct. 31, 1972).
5. Porfirio Diaz v. Chicago Transit Authority, 174 Ill.App.3d 396 (Aug. 26, 1988).
6. Paul Shatkus v. Checker Taxi Company, Inc., 111 Ill.App.2d 1 (Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, June 6,1969).
1. Aforementioned Hibma v. Odegaard, 769 F. 2d 1147 (1985).
2. Russell Nilsson v. Checker Cab Company, Inc., 4 Ill.App.3d 718 (Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division, April 20, 1972).
“The Appellate Court, Leighton, J., held that evidence would support finding by trial judge that plaintiff who was passenger in one of defendant’s taxicabs and who was injured in accident involving taxicab and another automobile did not sustain burden of showing that defendant taxi company was negligent. Affirmed.
Taxi company prevailed in this case.
3. Rosalie Borus v. Yellow Cab Company and Thomas Jamison, 52 Ill.App.3d 194 (Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division, Aug. 18, 1977).
Taxi company initially prevailed, citing “contributory negligence.” Musician could be accused of the same thing if he was the one who is seen to have shut the door on his guitar strap, rather than the strap catching on the door right before the cab moved forward and momentum swung the cab’s door shut on the strap.
4. John T. Talbott v. Yellow Cab Company of D.C., 121 A.2d 262 (Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, March 8, 1956).
Issue: Was taxi cab driver negligent when he failed to notice the musician was being dragged along by the guitar strap behind his cab?
Most precedent would hold the cab driver liable, as it is considered a “duty of care” of the driver to deliver passengers safely.
Rule: “Negligence is a duty of care which is owed by one to another followed by a breach of that duty which proximately causes harm” (Guay et al, 2013).
Application: Drivers’ inadequate attention both responsible for injuries to musician, with the taxi driver taking most of the blame for contributing to the situation that had the musician in the roadway where the second vehicle struck him. Had the taxi driver not dragged the musician down the street in the first place, the second vehicle would not have hit him, but the second driver is not relieved of his or her duty to drive safely and carefully enough to avoid any unexpected hazards in the roadway.
Conclusion: Based on analysis of available data and examining relevant Illinois-area cases, both drivers should be found negligent, with the taxi driver being more so (perhaps even considered reckless). The second driver may also consider naming the taxi driver in a separate suit, alleging that the initial injury to the musician is what caused the man to be in the second vehicle’s path in the roadway.
Whereas this quote refers mostly to business-related fraud, the reasoning applies to personal injuries rather than solely financial losses: “Under Illinois law, plaintiff may recover economic losses through tort action: (1) where plaintiff sustained personal injury or property damage resulting from tortious event; (2) where plaintiff’s damages are proximately caused by defendant’s intentional, false representation; and (3) where plaintiff’s damages are proximately caused by negligent misrepresentation by defendant in business of supplying information for guidance of others in their business transactions” (First Magnus Financial Corporation v. Leszek Dobrowski a/k/a Marek Maka, 387 F.Supp.2d 786 (United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division, June 2, 2005)).
George E. Guay III & Robert Cummins, Tort Law for Paralegals, (2010). Retrieved from http://digitalbookshelf.southuniversity.edu/#/books/0558542700/pages/48710147 (January 25, 2013).
S.H.A. ch. 70, § 1.
Klettke v. Checker Cab Company, Inc. et al, 26 Ill.App.2d 341 (1960).
Thomason v. Chicago Motor Coach Co., 292 Ill.App. 104, 113, 10 N.E.2d 714, 718.
De Bello v. Checker Cab Company, Inc., 8 Ill.App.3d 401 (1972).
Houston Transit Co. v. Zimmerman, 200 S.W.2d 848 (Texas Court of Civil Appeals, 1947).
Diaz v. Chicago Transit Authority, 174 Ill.App.3d 396 (1988).
Blitz v. Checker Cab Company, Inc., 8 Ill.App.3d 361 (1972).
Hibma v. Odegaard, 769 F. 2d 1147 (1985).
Blumenfeld v. Stuppi, 921 F. 2d 116 (1990).
Nilsson v. Checker Cab Company, Inc., 4 Ill.App.3d 718 (1972).
Thomas v. Yellow Cab Co., 344 N.E.2d 505, 508, Ill.App. 1 Dist.(Mar 15, 1976).
Loring v. Yellow Cab Co. 337 N.E.2d 428, 431, Ill.App. 1 Dist. (Oct 22, 1975).
Borus v. Yellow Cab Company et al, 52 Ill.App.3d 194 (1977).
Talbott v. Yellow Cab Company of D.C., 121 A.2d 262 (1956).
First Magnus Financial Corporation v. Dobrowski, 387 F.Supp.2d 786 (2005).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.