Back in August, 2020, Darius King was a customer inside Taqueria El Paraiso – a Waukegan Taco joint – when a car driven by Melanie Sanders crashed through a wall, striking King who suffered serious injuries. King initially sued Sanders and Alberto Leguizamo, the owner of the El Paraiso. King then settled with Sanders and then dismissed Leguizamo.
King then amended his complaint and added El Paraiso Del Pacifico, Inc[“El Paraiso”]. the corporate parent of of the restaurant. El Paraiso moved for summary judgment arguing that the cause of the crash was Sanders. The trial judge agreed and tossed the case against El Paraiso. King appealed the judge’s decision. The Appellate Court agreed with King and reversed the trial judge’s decision. Which was fortunate for King. Because a different defendant would later bring essentially the same motion – arguing that the only cause of the crash was Sanders. And the trial court would grant that motion, leading to a second appeal.
While the exact procedural sequence is not explained, apparently after El Paraiso won summary judgment, King filed a third amended complaint naming PAA, the owner and lessor of the property. King alleged that as the owner and lessor, PAA owed him a duty of care to protect him against cars crashing into the restaurant. King alleged that PAA was negligent for: (1) putting parking spaces close to the front door; (2) failing to provide sufficient protective barriers to keep a car from crashing into the restaurant; (3) failing to construct a safe eating area for patrons and (4) failing to prohibit parking in front of the restaurant.
On February 23, 2023, PAA also moved to have the case tossed, arguing that King failed to prove proximate cause, asserting that it was the negligence of Sanders that caused King’s injuries. Additionally, PAA argued that King failed to show that placing barriers or prohibiting parking in front would have prevented King’s injuries.
King, in his response, included a statement of facts showing the PAA had installed bollards(the short circular metal posts that are used to prohibit vehicle movement) at other restaurants including in spaces near the front of a similar restaurant in Elgin. Additionally, King pled that a vehicle had struck the building in approximately 2005. Finally, King included facts showing that bollards have been proven to stop a vehicle moving at speeds up to 27 mph. King argued that that he had put forth sufficient evidence to to create a question of fact as to the cause of his injuries. King also included the affidavit of an expert who insisted that the bollards were proven to be effective and would have stopped Sanders’ car from crashing into the restaurant. Additionally the Waukegan Police Department Crash Report, which included a statement from Sanders that she had inadvertently hit the gas pedal instead of the brake, was submitted.
Pedro Leguizamo was the managing member of PAA. Leguizamo was deposed, and in his deposition he admitted that he knew bollards stopped cars from entering commercial establishments. He further admitted that at another restaurant he had installed bollards between parking spots and the building. He also admitted that prior to the crash there were bollards around a trash area to prevent garbage trucks from damaging a trash corral. Finally Pedro admitted he was aware of the previous crash where a car had struck the building.
At the hearing on the summary judgment motion, PAA argued that while it may have furnished a condition to make King’s injuries possible, it was Sanders’ negligence – in mistakenly hitting the gas – that was the actual cause. The trial court agreed with PAA and tossed the case, finding that landowners are not liable for injuries caused to restaurant customers by out of control cars. The trial court held the King’s injuries were not foreseeable. King’s lawyers appealed again.
And here’s where the first Appellate Court opinion – reversing the El Paraiso summary judgement – came in handy.
The Appellate Court noted in its opinion that El Paraiso had previously sought and obtained summary judgment and that King had appealed that decision as well(“the El Paraiso appellate decision”). And the Appellate Court noted that the El Paraiso appellate decision had already provided clarity on the issue of causation. Specifically, in the El Paraiso appellate decision, the Appellate court noted that Sanders’ negligence was NOT an intervening act that immunized El Paraiso. The El Paraiso appellate court also found that El Paraiso’s breaches of duty were “substantial elements” in causing King’s injuries. Finally, the El Paraiso appellate decision concluded that King had provided sufficient evidence to create a question of fact on the issue of causation against El Paraiso.
So when the Appellate Court was called upon to review the trial court’s decision to cut PAA loose(again, on proximate cause grounds) it was the appellate equivalent of “been there, done that.” The Appellate Court concluded “we have already decided that the facts of this case created a triable issue on the element of proximate cause with respect to [El Paraiso] and have no basis to hold differently here with respect to PAA.”
The trial court’s decision granting summary judgment to PAA was reversed.
Kudos to Bartoluci Law – the lawyers for King – who doggedly pursued and secured reversal of two incorrect trial court decisions.
