Court Opinion

ID: 9705846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:23:39.064274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:04.684901
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE EARNS, dissenting: I believe the majority reads Estes Co. v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co. (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 228, 402 N.E.2d 613, too broadly. In holding that the delivery there was a “completed operation,” the opinion cannot be considered authority that decidedly different circumstances are not “completed operations.” While it is true that Illinois has adopted the “completed operations” doctrine, which requires that the material delivered be placed at a designated reception point, there still must be some causal connection with the placement of the material and the use of the vehicle. Here the material was placed inside the small cooler, although not at the precise place designated. (In my opinion it is doubtful that this could be considered a “misdelivery.”) The driver of the vehicle departed. The immediate cause of plaintiff’s fall was water on the floor of the cooler. Perhaps “but for” the placement of the potatoes this accident would not have occurred, but such remote causal relationships have consistently been rejected as a basis of imposing responsibility. (See Prosser, Torts sec. 41, at 239 (4th ed. 1971).) The causal connection of the occurrence with the use of the vehicle is simply too remote. Entz v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. (1966), 64 Cal. 2d 379, 412 P.2d 382, 50 Cal. Rptr. 190. Even though the. sacks might be considered misdelivered, they were finally delivered to the control of the consignee. No further movement was necessarily contemplated or required. Other cases have considered such delivery a “completed operation.” Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (7th Cir. 1958), 251 F.2d 761; General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (Fla. App. 1972), 260 So. 2d 249.