Court Opinion

ID: 9524644
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:55:24.397852+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:11:20.190493
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GREEN, dissenting: I dissent. I do not agree that plaintiffs’ reliance on defendants’ misrepresentation was unjustified as a matter of law. In Carter v. Mueller (1983), 120 Ill. App. 3d 314, 457 N.E.2d 1335, cited by the majority, evidence showed that a prospective tenant had been dissuaded from checking misrepresentations made on behalf of a landlord as to the condition of an apartment when he was told that a key to the apartment was unavailable. The First District reversed a finding against the prospective tenant (who later became a tenant) on a fraud count and held that the statement that the key was unavailable negated the need for further investigation. The appellate court stated that reliance is justified “where the person making the statement has inhibited plaintiff’s inquiries by either creating a false sense of security or blocking investigation.” (Emphasis added.) 120 Ill. App. 3d 314, 319, 457 N.E.2d 1335, 1340. Here, plaintiffs relied upon defendants’ misrepresentations only after being told that they could not see anything if they went to the attic and were further assured that nothing was amiss in regard to the roof. Thus, defendants “inhibited [plaintiffs’] inquiry” by both “creating a false sense of security” and also by “blocking investigation.” When the foregoing conduct by defendants and the plaintiffs’ lack of sophistication in business matters is considered, it is apparent that the evidence supported the court’s determination that plaintiffs’ reliance on defendants’ misrepresentations was justified. Interestingly, the successor text to that cited by the majority indicates a strong movement away from requiring a showing of any substantial care before a person may rely upon a material representation by a party to a business transaction. The text notes that the Second Restatement of Torts makes no reference to contributory negligence being a factor in regard to tortious misrepresentation. Prosser & Keeton, Torts sec. 108, at 750-53 (5th ed 1984); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. 538(2)(b) (1977). Clearly, the conduct of plaintiffs here in making no further investigation after being dissuaded from looking at the attic was less than the entering into a transaction with their eyes closed to available information which the court in Broberg v. Mann (1965), 66 Ill. App. 2d 134, 213 N.E.2d 89, deemed to be the type of conduct which precluded bringing an action for misrepresentation. I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.