Court Opinion

ID: 9532633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:23:28.788781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:48.036881
License: Public Domain

BURMAN, J., specially concurring. I am in accord with the majority opinion that under the facts and circumstances in this case the question of complicity was a vital one and the failure to give a tendered instruction on this issue was prejudicial error requiring a new trial. I also agree that the injection of the matter of insurance coverage was prejudicial error. I do not agree with the conclusion of the majority that the verdicts and judgments entered thereunder were against the manifest weight of the evidence. As a matter of fact the defendants’ brief under the heading of Points and Authorities makes no reference to manifest weight as is required by Appellate Court Rule 7. Had the trial errors complained of not been committed below I would have no hesitancy in finding that the evidence, even as it is set out in the majority, is sufficient to support the verdicts. I feel that such a conclusion would uphold the spirit of the Dram Shop Legislation and the most recent authorities which have interpreted that act. Busser v. Noble, 22 Ill App2d 433, 161 NE2d 150.