DAVID WARREN, Claimant v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent
Case summary
Claimant alleged personal injury due to an unsafe condition. The court granted summary judgment for Respondent because Claimant failed to file a reply to affirmative defenses, deeming the defenses admitted.
Statutes cited: 735 ILCS 5/2-602
Cases cited: Mitchell Buick & Oldsmobile Sales, Inc. v. National Dealer Services, Inc., 485 N.E. 2d 1281, 1289 (1985); In re Marriage of Sreenan, 402 N.E. 2d 348 (1980)
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- Affirmative Defenses - Failure to Respond - State’s Motion for Summary Judgment granted where Claimant failed to file a response to the affirmative defenses filed by the State and where more than two years had passed since the State filed said affirmative defenses.
- Affirmative Defenses - Failure to Respond - A response to Respondent’s affirmative defenses is mandatory where new matter is plead and Claimant’s failure to reply constitutes an admission as to the proof of the new matter alleged.
ORDER
STORINO, J. This cause comes before the Court on Respondent’s Joint Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss, the Court having reviewed the court file, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, finds:
1. On March 11, 2004, Respondent filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses.
2. Respondent’s affirmative defenses allege that:
A. Claimant was guilty of negligent conduct which proximately contributed to cause the injuries and damages complained of, and that Claimant’s conduct resulted in at least fifty percent contributory fault; and [*328] B. Respondent did not have actual or constructive notice of the existence of an unsafe condition in a reasonably adequate time prior to the injury to have taken measures to remedy or protect against said condition and, accordingly, cannot be held liable for said alleged injury.
3. To date, Claimant has failed to file a responsive pleading to Respondent’s affirmative defenses. More than two years have passed since Respondent’s affirmative defenses were filed.
4. A reply to Respondent’s Answer is mandatory where new matter by way of defense is plead. Claimant’s failure to reply constitutes an admission as to the proof of the new matter alleged. 735 ILCS 5/2-602, Mitchell Buick & Oldsmobile Sales, Inc. v. National Dealer Services, Inc., 485 N.E. 2d 1281, 1289 (1985) citing In re Marriage of Sreenan, 402 N.E. 2d 348 (1980).
5. The matters raised in Respondent’s Affirmative Defenses are deemed admitted against Claimant.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
2. Judgment is entered in favor of Respondent.