Cunag v. McCarthy
Appellate Court of Illinois
1Dissent
ENGLISH, J,
dissenting:
I agree with the majority’s conclusion (contrary to the ruling of the trial court) that the evidence shows plaintiff to have been a social guest or licensee rather than an invitee. That being so, the general rule is that liability of the defendant would have to be predicated upon wilful or wanton misconduct if the Michigan common law were to be considered the same as that declared by the Illinois courts. (Biggs v. Bear, 320 Ill App 597, 599, 51 NE2d 799; Krantz v. Nichols, 11 Ill App2d 37, 135 NE2d 816; Royal League v. Kavanagh, 233 Ill 175, 180, 84 NE 178.)
Cited by the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Royal League v. KavanaghIllinois Supreme Court · 1908
- Anderson v. CinnamonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1955
- Anderson v. WeltyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1960
- Schmidt v. Michigan Coal & Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1909
- Biggs v. BearAppellate Court of Illinois · 1943
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.