Grinyou v. 303 Taxi, LLC
2017 IL App (1st) 160193
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Edvard Grinyov was seriously injured when a taxi owned by VEM Transportation and driven by VEM employee Igor Maslennikov struck him while being moved for an inspection near 303 Taxi’s office.
- Grinyov sued Maslennikov, VEM, and 303 Taxi, alleging vicarious liability based on either a joint venture or principal–agent relationship; the jury returned a special verdict for plaintiff on the agency theory.
- 303 Taxi is a dispatch company that provides equipment, dispatch services, training, inspections, and insurance procurement to affiliate cab owners in exchange for monthly dues; VEM was an affiliate that paid substantial monthly fees to 303 Taxi.
- Evidence at trial included: 303 Taxi’s role in training and approving drivers, routine inspections, discipline by suspending dispatch service, requirement to accept 303 Taxi coupons/corporate charges, shared office/mail address, 303 Taxi’s procurement/payment of insurance later reimbursed by VEM, and testimony that a 303 Taxi manager asked Maslennikov to bring the cab in for inspection.
- Defendants conceded liability of VEM and Maslennikov but disputed that VEM was 303 Taxi’s agent (or engaged in a joint venture); 303 Taxi moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence of agency and prejudicial insurance/financial evidence.
- The trial court and appellate panel denied relief, holding the cumulative evidence permitted the jury to find a principal–agent relationship (including the specific act directing the driver to retrieve the cab) and that insurance/financial testimony was admissible for agency/leverage and cured by limiting instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether VEM was 303 Taxi’s agent such that 303 Taxi is vicariously liable for Maslennikov’s tort | 303 Taxi exercised control and leverage over VEM (training, inspections, discipline, coupons, insurance procurement, shared office/mail, large fee payments) and the accident occurred while driver acted at 303 Taxi’s direction | 303 Taxi merely sold dispatch services and equipment; affiliates were independent contractors; insurance procurement and close business ties do not establish the right to control | Jury verdict affirmed — the cumulative evidence (including the instruction to retrieve the cab) supported a fact question on agency; JNOV and new-trial denied |
| Admissibility of insurance evidence and testimony about fees/payments | Insurance procurement and reimbursement and VEM’s payments to 303 Taxi show 303 Taxi’s leverage and are relevant to agency; any prejudice cured by limiting instruction | Evidence of insurance limits and 303 Taxi’s receipts improperly suggested fault or wealth and unfairly prejudiced 303 Taxi | Admitted: trial court did not abuse discretion; insurance and payments relevant to agency; limiting instruction given and presumed followed |
| Whether an “agency event” (act of direction) alone can support agency liability | The manager’s direction to retrieve the cab constituted an agency act supporting vicarious liability in context of broader relationship | An isolated act is insufficient absent broader right to control | Court: the direction, together with other control indicia, supported the agency finding (court did not rest on the single act alone) |
| Whether verdict was against manifest weight of evidence | The evidence reasonably supported agency; verdict not arbitrary | Evidence insufficient as a matter of law; Daniels-like affiliation should be treated as independent contractor relationship | Affirmed: verdict not against manifest weight; denial of JNOV/new trial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- York v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center, 222 Ill. 2d 147 (standard for JNOV and viewing evidence in plaintiff-favorable light)
- Pedrick v. Peoria & E.R.R. Co., 37 Ill. 2d 494 (standard describing JNOV/Pedrick test)
- Adames v. Sheahan, 233 Ill. 2d 276 (burden of proving agency rests on party seeking to impose vicarious liability)
- Woods v. Cole, 181 Ill. 2d 512 (respondeat superior and principal liability for agent’s torts)
- Petrovich v. Share Health Plan of Illinois, Inc., 188 Ill. 2d 17 (distinguishing independent contractor from agent; right to control is cardinal factor)
- Horwitz v. Holabird & Root, 212 Ill. 2d 1 (labels insufficient; control inquiry governs agent vs. independent contractor)
- Daniels v. Corrigan, 382 Ill. App. 3d 66 (affiliation agreement context where affiliation did not create agency)
- Oliveira-Brooks v. Re/Max International, Inc., 372 Ill. App. 3d 127 (insurance requirements alone do not create agency)
- Snelson v. Kamm, 204 Ill. 2d 1 (trial court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Boettcher v. Fournie Farms, Inc., 243 Ill. App. 3d 940 (insurance evidence admissible for agency/control/bias issues)
- Stathis v. Geldermann, 295 Ill. App. 3d 844 (evidence of wealth/powerful financial facts improper only if offered solely to arouse prejudice)