Martin Lewis Case Study

Plaintiff, Martin Lewis, brought action against defendants, Heartland Food Corporation, Burger King Corporation (BKC), and its franchisor, Burger King No. 1250 in circuit court, seeking compensatory and punitive damages arising from the theft of his iPhone. BKC filed a motion to strike plaintiffs prayer for punitive damages, which was granted by the trial court. The trial court also entered an order dismissing Burger King No. 1250 as a defendant. BKC, and Heartland Food Corporation each filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2–615 of the Code, and the trial court granted both motions to dismiss. The circuit cook, Cook County, dismissed action, and plaintiff appealed.

Facts of the Case:

Martin Lewis was at a Burger King restaurant in

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7). The court took exception to plaintiff’s failure to articulate his contentions with unsupported, and uncited legal arguments, which, were not in compliance with the rules of procedure. Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7). The court had harsh language in regards to the appellant not doing his due diligence in his brief preparation, which shifted the appellant’s burden of argument and research to the court. Thrall Car Mfg. Co. v. Lindquist, 145 Ill.App.3d 712, 719, 99 Ill.Dec. 397, 495 N.E.2d 1132 (1986). Pro se litigants are held to the same standard as legal professionals, and must follow the rules that dictate the form and content of appellate briefs. In re Marriage of Barile, 385 Ill.App.3d 752, 757, 324 Ill.Dec. 895, 896 N.E.2d 1114

State Bank of Lombard, 125 Ill.2d 203, 215-16, 126 Ill.Dec. 519, 531 N.E.2d 1358 (1988) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314 (1965)), in addressing the duty of care element of negligence by a landowner. The court found no duty of care exists to protect others from criminal activities by third persons unless a “special relationship” exists between the parties. Zeroing in on the special relationship language, the court found that even if a special relationship exists between parties, in Illinois a landowner’s liability extends only to “physical harm” caused by acts of third persons. Marshall, 222 Ill.2d at 437, 305 Ill.Dec. 897, 856 N.E.2d 1048 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344 (1965)). The court further distinguishes special relationship as business invitor and invitee. Id. At 216, 126 Ill.Dec. 519. 531 N.E.2d