## Facts

- Vincent Martin was injured in an automobile collision involving a cab driven by Albert Stokes and owned by Yellow Cab Company (Yellow).
- Martin sued Stokes for negligence and sued Yellow solely on vicarious liability under respondeat superior; Stokes’s status as Yellow’s agent was not disputed.
- Martin did not obtain service of process on Stokes with reasonable diligence before the statute of limitations expired.
- The trial court dismissed the claims against Stokes under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 103(b); because the limitations period had run, the dismissal was with prejudice.
- Yellow moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Rule 103(b) dismissal of Stokes operated as an adjudication on the merits under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 273 and therefore barred the derivative claim against Yellow under res judicata principles applied in the master–servant context.
- After Yellow filed for summary judgment, Martin sought leave to file an amended complaint asserting direct negligence theories against Yellow (including negligent entrustment and negligent hiring) and also sought to depose Yellow.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Yellow and denied Martin’s requests to amend and to conduct the requested deposition. Martin appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a Rule 103(b) dismissal with prejudice of an agent for lack of reasonable diligence in service, entered after the statute of limitations expired and treated as an adjudication on the merits under Rule 273, bars a pending respondeat superior claim against the principal under res judicata.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Martin leave to amend to add direct negligence counts against Yellow and by denying additional discovery after Yellow moved for summary judgment.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for Yellow.
- The court held that the Rule 103(b) dismissal of Stokes, entered after limitations expired, was with prejudice and operated as an adjudication on the merits under Rule 273.
- Because Yellow’s liability as pleaded was purely derivative of Stokes’s negligence, the adjudication in Stokes’s favor barred the respondeat superior claim against Yellow.
- The appellate court also affirmed the denial of Martin’s motion to amend and his request to depose Yellow, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s handling of those requests given the timing and posture of the case.

## Legal Principles

- Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 103(b), when a plaintiff fails to exercise reasonable diligence to obtain service of process and the statute of limitations has expired, dismissal is with prejudice.
- Illinois Supreme Court Rule 273 provides that an involuntary dismissal (with limited exceptions) operates as an adjudication on the merits.
- Res judicata bars relitigation of the same claim when there is a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction, and it applies to parties and those sufficiently related to them for purposes of the doctrine.
- In Illinois master–servant/agent–principal cases, when the plaintiff’s claim against the principal is only vicarious (respondeat superior), a judgment on the merits in favor of the servant/agent based on the same occurrence bars the vicarious claim against the master/principal.
- Granting or denying leave to amend pleadings and managing discovery are matters committed to the trial court’s discretion; reversal requires a showing that the court abused that discretion in the circumstances presented.

## Conclusion

Martin’s failure to timely and diligently serve the cab driver led to a Rule 103(b) dismissal with prejudice that, under Rule 273, counted as an adjudication on the merits; because Martin’s claim against Yellow was solely derivative under respondeat superior, res judicata barred the action against Yellow, and the appellate court also found no abuse of discretion in denying Martin’s late effort to add direct-negligence counts or to take additional discovery.


Martin v. Yellow Cab Co., 567 N.E.2d 461 (1990)