A resident of Sauk Village is challenging a court decision after her vehicle was damaged at a local car wash. On September 9, 2024, Taiwo F. Durowade filed an appeal in the Appellate Court of Illinois against Lenny’s Gas-N-Wash Sauk Trail, LLC, contesting the trial court's judgment.
The case dates back to August 3, 2020, when Durowade visited Lenny’s Gas-N-Wash in Sauk Village. According to her complaint, she followed the attendant's instructions to put her car in neutral but soon heard a loud noise. Upon exiting the car wash, she discovered that her windshield wiper was broken and her windshield cracked. She promptly reported the incident and filled out an incident report. Durowade accused Lenny’s Gas-N-Wash of negligence for failing to provide comprehensive safety instructions and claimed $711.85 in damages for repairs.
Initially, Durowade requested a jury trial which was denied because she did not demand it when filing her complaint. The trial proceeded as a bench trial on June 21, 2021, resulting in a judgment favoring Lenny’s Gas-N-Wash. Durowade appealed this decision, arguing that good cause existed for her late jury demand filing and that it did not inconvenience the defendant. The appellate court agreed and remanded the case for a jury trial.
Before the new trial began on March 22, 2023, Durowade proposed jury instructions on negligent voluntary undertaking—a legal theory holding that one who voluntarily provides services must do so with due care or face liability for any harm caused by their negligence. However, the trial court denied these instructions based on insufficient evidence supporting such claims and limited the scope of voluntary undertaking to instructing customers to put their cars in neutral.
During the subsequent jury trial held later that day, no transcript or acceptable substitute was provided in the record to support Durowade's claim of error regarding jury instructions. After losing again at this trial and having her motion for a new trial denied on August 3, 2023, Durowade filed another appeal arguing that the denial of her proposed jury instruction prejudiced her right to a fair trial.
Represented by attorneys from both sides—Justice Cobbs delivering judgment with Justices Fitzgerald Smith and Lavin concurring—the appellate court upheld the lower court's decision due to an incomplete record which failed to demonstrate any reversible error or prejudice caused by excluding the proposed instruction.
The case highlights critical procedural aspects of civil litigation involving negligence claims and underscores how incomplete records can impact appeals.