only for those injuries that are approximately caused by the defendants or she's done up until now this is been true in both cases where a defendant has been charged with negligence and in cases where defendant has distinct elements was in fact and legal cause the defendant's conduct is deemed to be a pause in fact of the plaintiff injuries only affect conduct is found to be a substantial factor in bringing about defendant on but the sport in little made a distinction between acts of suicide committed by persons were bereft of reason and mentally ill in acts of suicide but had by persons who although  raised in the hina hold were the very same ones that are being raised here that are founded in high and will argue that it was a fundamental principle of ellen only portable that a plaintiff could not recover damages unless he could prove that the caused by the defendant's conduct apply only to the emotional distress itself not to the compensable damages suffer cause ation to the emotional distress element of it but not to the bodily harm element of such that the selective application of the principles of proximate cause ation to some elements of damages but not plaintiff wrongful death action in that case was brought against both defendants in charge both of them with negligence battery and false arrest california law in new hampshire in addition to  good morning made these court my name is richard grossman and i represent maria terse ios both individually and as the special administrator of the state of nelson stairs ceased has been and i also represent the children nelson maria services let me begin by stating that this case is about one thing illinois law this court should recognize the substantial fact which is stated in variously in the in the in the california wyoming new hampshire indiana  cases sensually that a person who acts wrongfully that is commits an intentional wrongful act against another will be liable if that person commits suicide as long as his wrongful act created an emotional distress which resulted was a substantial factor in the suicide now counsel says that this isn't the law in illinois and it shouldn't be the law in illinois what we're asking this court to do is to notice that in every one of these cases that that we've cited from foreign jurisdictions the principle that someone who acts wrongfully should bear a greater responsibility for their actions than someone who's acted negligently is the key all we're saying and this is supported by virtually every commentator processor by other scholarly authority and all of these foreign jurisdiction cases and in illinois by the way your colleague justice i mean and judge meaningful distinction between people who act intentionally and people who act negligently i'll give you an example you're driving your car you're this surveying the law and acting negligently by looking at your cell phone or texting or whatever your car jumps the curve you hit a person that person becomes paraplegic that person can't end driving my car and i see that person i say you know i've always hated that person i'm going to hit him with my car may not kill you hit some with this car jumps the curb and hits the once you intend to harm another you are responsible for whatever comes down the pike that includes in this case would be suicide but  if you look at it if you look at the at the if you survey the causes of action which resulted in the in the rulings in those four injures fictions in the rule that a person is liable for intentional conduct if is  even for a suicide if is wrongful act was a substantial factor in the victim's suicide there was a bomb in a bag that was i think the indiana case  court says what the plaintiff did i'm sorry what the defendant did was a wrongful and as a result we're going to say that the death the defendant is liable for whatever happens what after he does that what if instead of committing suicide the victim of this goes out and hurt somebody else there's would there be a liability there i don't think so i don't think that the  i'm sorry no i was going to say so you're confining strictly to suicide or you just said you're responsible for whatever happens so how do you draw that line well i would think that you're not responsible for the liability there i if you're suggesting that the victim of the the injured defendants negligence or the end i guess my actual right would be they would have a  draw this without without doing violence to others as well the case law that's been presented to you all involves suicide my case in ve suicide i am not sure that you need to necessarily go beyond the suicide contest you can leave that for another day as to whether i mean this is a pretty unusual situation in the first place obviously we're standing here in twenty fifteen the state of illinois you know around for a long time since eighteen eighteen this is the first time that somebody case which didn't deal with an intentional toward and didn't fix a that there has to be proximate cause and in fact rejected the argument that there's something different in every sense of causation between intentional and negligent towards how does that apply here a couple things one council says he doesn't see any language and he limiting language and i know in each of these the the recitations of the rule that they require proximate cause you know i hope they as fraud is just saying the only fraud would require the enter the because you start out by saying no intentional torts right but you agree in latch on to the appellate court argument that that at least fraud because it says such as fraud that the principle is a political they actions for negligence as well as intentional courts such as fraud in your thinking that limits the limits the fraud but isn't the phrase such as broad an inclusive rather than an it's xclusive statement is that such as fraud implies that there's other intentional forth which would qualify well i'm going to i'm going to blame the english language for being ambiguous i look at it and say if i wanted to say such as something i it might be inclusive but it might also be saying you know just such as this one cop or this one thing and in the it you're right the appellate court did read it that way i think that that was the the right way to read because i've suggested that there is a logical  distinction between the fraud you and and something like battery because in fraud you are required to plead with specificity there's a heightened burden of proof  is clear and convincing and what the courts always find in fraud cases is that there there has to be some kind of i'll use the phrase none remote connection between what you did fraudulent and and and effect that is you can proceed in a wrongful death claim even though there's a suicide they all have the same nine remote concept dealing with fraud and i've cited every case from every state where that requirement is imposed in other words in every state that i'm urging is a model for this court to say that if a wrongful death case proceed even if there's a suicide they also have this not a remote connection in the fraud cases so there is something about fraud and deceit and the cases involving fisheries where you need to show  a fundamental principle of political will like the bridges of god directed towards that in order to of find a right of action there must be a wrongful act on in the last resulting from the wrongful act the wrongful act must be the act of the defendant and the injury if we interpret it xclusive as you in the appellate courts seem to say you win if we include if we look at it is inclusive in the intentional tort of it intentional infliction of emotional distress comes under that umbrella you lose as it is it is that simple for the court i don't believe so here's why i'm standing here on a case what i regard and what i think the appellant has acknowledged as a case first impression we're asking the the actual circumstance previous rulings that didn't deal with the precise question that's that's your confronting are not binding that is are there not they shouldn't they shouldn't opportunity of the law to advance what we're saying here is that in in these no one's ever brought a case where there's an intentional tort followed by suicide they have no suicide wrongful death cases in illinois and i'm saying no this court ought to take a look at what every other jurisdiction and all the commentators and professor prosper and everyone who's ever confronted the situation on a full plenary hearing has said there's a system meaningful in substantial distinction between people who act intentionally and people who acknowledge and so you do i lose if extent that the martin vs hine hold case has language which would foreclose my playing are my clients client were asking that that you reconsider it in light of the fact that there are in light effect that this court would be the only supreme court and by the way all these cases that we've cited are some these are intermediate appellate courts these are the supreme courts of the states that this court would be the only court out of those those four supreme court cases and the federal cases interpret in the state courts law there's three of those to say took to review the situation and say we're going to  what every other court has found to be a meaningful distinction that is the distinction between intentional and never seen conduct in this kind of a case where there's been a suicide and we're just we're going to say we're we're different yes we question you we keep talking about these four cases and if you look at four cases it appears that they set out different rules california talks about that in order to recover these damages the acts intentional or based on actual malice that the conduct that would be alleged that would be sufficient is an even higher standard in that so each one of these four states has a different statement of law what statement of law are you proposing for us here i think it's the statement of love which ice i cited in my brief as the issue presented it's very simple and it is yes i would say fairly broad and that is whether illinois should recognize a cause of action for wrongful death and or survival where a defendant's intentionally tortious conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about this which is agreed that these four cases that we've been or they say that the rule that the suicide rule will not be of a bar to proceeding in a in a suicide case in my or the courts at the law of torts recognizes that a defendant who intentionally causes harm as greater culpable than one who negligently does when the wrong is intentional the defendant is responsible for the injuries directly caused even though they may be beyond the limits of first the ability now i recognize that this is  policy court and you're not sure to correct you know somebody might of the court might have done something you know that they wouldn't have done or ever your making policy and there have there you're right there has to be some limit but what i'm suggesting is that once it seems to me fair that once you find that a person has acted with the intention to harm someone else why shouldn't they be liable for whatever happens if instead of there being a negligent act that resulted in the firecracker going what if that person had intentionally thrown a fire what i'm saying is that even if it  occurs at the other end of the station platform that person who intentionally threw the firecracker should be responsible for whatever eventually is when he does his rough land now as the chief justice garment said it probably shouldn't earthly simplied probably shouldn't encompass somebody who then goes out and and commits a crime that just seems to me one step too far but it certainly is not too far to ask the court to recognize that somebody who runs somebody over maybe eventually responsible for you know that person suicide  it's not the first case in illinois they didn't file a death i suicide in intentional words as i was mentioning during my primary argument that was the issue and that was the situation in the case of loss