Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Drengberg v. Gerke
Citations: 88 Ill. App. 2d 368; 232 N.E.2d 145; 1967 Ill. App. LEXIS 1349Docket: Gen. No. 51,836
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; October 13, 1967; Illinois; State Appellate Court
Marie C. Drengberg filed a lawsuit seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly resulting from Earl W. Gerke's willful and wanton misconduct while operating his automobile in Indiana, where the guest statute applies. The court initially ruled in favor of Drengberg with a $7,500 judgment, but later overturned this decision in favor of Gerke. Drengberg contends that the determination of willful or wanton misconduct should have been presented to the jury, while Gerke argues that he did not engage in such misconduct as a matter of law. On September 9, 1962, Gerke was driving on U.S. Route 6, accompanied by his wife, daughter, and Drengberg, when he attempted to pass a tractor-trailer traveling at 40-45 mph. Gerke accelerated to 50 mph to overtake the truck but encountered a slippery spot on the road, which caused him to lose control and collide with the tractor-trailer. The accident resulted in injuries to Drengberg, but there was no evidence indicating that Gerke's driving was reckless or that he had a history of dangerous driving. Indiana law defines willful or wanton misconduct as intentional wrongful acts or omissions done with reckless indifference to the consequences, requiring awareness of conditions that could lead to injury. The court referenced prior case law to support its interpretation of the standard for liability under the guest statute. In Hoesel v. Cain and related cases, the court found no evidence indicating that the defendant's windshield was obstructed or that the wipers were ineffective. After the defendant's left rear wheel left the road, he could only attempt to regain control of the vehicle, which was no longer parallel to a truck he had been following for two miles at 40 mph. When the defendant attempted to pass the truck at a point where the road was clear, he unexpectedly hit a slick spot, leading to a loss of control of his car. The court determined there was no evidence of willful or wanton misconduct, as there was no indication the defendant acted recklessly after becoming aware of road conditions. The court upheld the judgment favoring the defendant, stating the plaintiff's request to amend her complaint to include allegations of the defendant's intoxication was properly denied due to a lack of supporting evidence, as the issue was raised only after jury selection. Consequently, the judgment in favor of the defendant was affirmed.