Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > Scott v. Aldi, Inc.

Scott v. Aldi, Inc.

Case Date: 11/13/1998
Court: 1st District Appellate
Docket No: 1-97-1616



Scott v. Aldi, Inc., No. 1-97-1616

1st Dist. 11-13-98



SIXTH DIVISION

NOVEMBER 13, 1998



No. 1-97-1616

DONNETTE SCOTT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ALDI, INC., a corporation,

Defendant-Appellee,

JOHN SPANN, ESTATE OF RETHA M.JONES, deceased, by MARK DEBOFSKY,Special Administrator,

Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUITCOURT OF COOK COUNTY.

HONORABLE

EDWARD R. BURR,

JUDGE PRESIDING.

PRESIDING JUSTICE CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff Donnette Scott appeals the dismissal of count III of her three count amended complaintagainst defendant Aldi, Inc. (Aldi) in a personal injury action. Defendants John Spann and theEstate of Retha M. Jones, deceased, by Mark Debofsky as special administrator, are not parties tothis appeal.

The record on appeal indicates that plaintiff initially filed suit on May 9, 1996. The amendedcomplaint at issue here was filed on October 4, 1996.

Plaintiff's amended complaint contains the following allegations. Aldi is an Indiana corporationthat owned and operated a supermarket near the intersection of 63rd Street and Lowe Avenue inChicago, Illinois. Aldi, through its agents or employees, allegedly entered into an agreement,arrangement, combination or conspiracy with other parties to operate an unlawful vehicle-for-hireor livery or taxi business on its premises.

Aldi's employees allegedly allowed and permitted to operate the unlawful taxi business upon itspremises and parking lot. Aldi allegedly encouraged, allowed and permitted persons within thestore to solicit Aldi customers for the unlawful taxi business. Aldi also permitted its employees toescort check-out customers from the store to for-hire vehicles lined up in the parking lot. Aldialso allowed a person wearing a uniform or other apparel to stand in front of the main exit, directfor-hire vehicles to the front of the store and to escort customers into these vehicles.

Plaintiff also alleged that Aldi knew or should have known that the owners or drivers of thefor-hire vehicles were engaged in an unlawful vehicle-for-hire or livery or taxi business, becauseit was allegedly obvious that the owners or drivers were soliciting business and were not licensedby the City of Chicago, lacked proper liability insurance, failed to have the vehicles properlyinspected, failed to have a proper emblem, and failed to have valid chauffeur's licenses, inviolation of the Chicago Municipal Code and the Illinois Vehicle Code. See 625 ILCS 5/1-111,8-101 et seq. (West 1996); Chicago Municipal Code