Chuttke v. Fresen
2017 IL App (2d) 161018
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- On April 21, 2011, Diana Chuttke was injured when an intoxicated driver, Adam Fresen, crossed into her lane and struck her vehicle after drinking at Cadillac Ranch Texas BBQ & Boot Bar, Inc. (the dramshop).
- Chuttke sued Fresen (negligence) and the dramshop under the Illinois Dramshop Act (235 ILCS 5/6-21).
- Chuttke settled with Fresen for $50,000 (compensatory only); Fresen’s insurer issued the check.
- The parties stipulated that a hypothetical jury would award total damages of $61,151.30 (which equals the statutory cap under the Act).
- The dramshop sought a setoff for the $50,000 Fresen settlement; the trial court granted the setoff and entered judgment against the dramshop for $11,151.30.
- Chuttke appealed, arguing dramshop judgments cannot be reduced by recoveries from third parties because the Act is penal and indemnity/immunity principles prevent setoff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a dramshop defendant is entitled to a setoff for a plaintiff’s recovery from a third-party tortfeasor | Dramshop recovery is penal in nature; permitting setoff would undermine the Act’s disciplinary/penal purpose and effectively diminish dramshop liability | One-recovery rule and precedent require reduction of dramshop liability by amounts the plaintiff already recovered from other tortfeasors | Court held dramshop is entitled to a setoff; plaintiff’s settlement reduces the dramshop judgment by the settlement amount |
| Whether Wessel or Muranyi preclude setoff in dramshop cases | Wessel (indemnity) and Muranyi (collateral-source) establish dramshop exceptions that bar shifting recovery reductions to plaintiffs’ third-party recoveries | Wessel addresses indemnity (not setoff); Muranyi protects collateral-source payments only — neither bars setoff for third-party settlements | Court held those cases do not apply to setoff; indemnity and setoff are distinct, collateral-source rule inapplicable here |
Key Cases Cited
- Thornton v. Garcini, 237 Ill. 2d 100 (Illinois Supreme Court) (defines setoff and reviews one-recovery rule)
- Kurth v. Amee, Inc., 3 Ill. App. 3d 506 (Ill. App. Ct.) (dramshop verdict should reflect total damages then be reduced by other recoveries)
- Wessel v. Carmi Elks Home, Inc., 54 Ill. 2d 127 (Illinois Supreme Court) (indemnity not allowed under the Dramshop Act)
- Muranyi v. Turn Verein Frisch-Auf, 308 Ill. App. 3d 213 (Ill. App. Ct.) (collateral-source rule protects certain benefits from reduction under the Act)
- Patton v. D. Rhodes, Ltd., 166 Ill. App. 3d 809 (Ill. App. Ct.) (followed Kurth; reduced dramshop recovery by third-party settlement)
- Saichek v. Lupa, 204 Ill. 2d 127 (Illinois Supreme Court) (single, indivisible injury yields one recovery)