Illinois Supreme Court Civil Issues Pending: Tort Law
[UPDATED THROUGH DECEMBER 24, 2011]
Simpkins v. CSX Transportation
Supreme Court Case Number: 110662
Appellate Court: Fifth District
Appellate Court Case Number: 5-07-0346
Issue Presented: Does an employer owe a tort duty of due care to the immediate family of its employees?
Appellate Court Opinion Summary: Plaintiff sued various defendants for personal injuries, alleging she had contracted mesothelioma due to exposure to asbestos brought home on husband’s body and work clothes during their marriage. One defendant successfully moved for dismissal, alleging that as a matter of law, an employer owes no duty of care to the families of its employees. The Appellate Court reversed. The existence of a tort duty, the Court held, depended on a balancing of four factors: (1) the foreseeability of risk of harm; (2) the likelihood of injury; (3) the magnitude of the burden involved in protecting against the harm; and (4) the consequences of placing on the defendant the duty to protect against the harm. Following decisions of the Tennessee and New Jersey Supreme Courts, the court found that these factors weighed in favor of finding a duty of care.
Howell v. Dunaway
Supreme Court Case Numbers: 110199, 110200
Appellate Court: Fifth District
Appellate Court Case Number: 5-09-0071, 5-09-0072
Issue Presented: Is a hospital’s statutory lien for services, filed pursuant to the Health Care Services Lien Act, 770 ILCS 23/1, subject to a reduction under the common fund doctrine for attorney fees incurred by the injured plaintiff?
Appellate Court Opinion Summary: Both plaintiffs were injured in motor vehicle accidents, and sued the tortfeasors. The hospitals filed liens against any recovery pursuant to the Health Care Services Lien Act, 770 ILCS 23/1. After settling the personal injury actions, the plaintiffs filed petitions to adjudicate the liens, seeking to apply a one-third reduction in the amount of the liens to account for attorney fees incurred. The Circuit Court agreed with plaintiffs, applied the common fund reduction, and entered judgment, and the hospitals appealed. On appeal, the hospitals argued that the common fund rule was inapplicable to liens under the Act pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Maynard v. Parker, 75 Ill.2d 73 (1979), on the grounds that plaintiffs’ debt to the hospitals was not dependent on the creation of the fund. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the Supreme Court had expanded the common fund rule to lienholder hospitals in a later decision, Bishop v. Burgard, 198 Ill.2d 495 (2002).
Citations to Opinion: 924 N.E.2d 1190, 338 Ill. Dec. 664
