Opinion ID: 2042260
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether Plaintiffs' Tort Claims Are Barred by the Moorman Doctrine

Text: In Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co ., this court held the purchaser of a defective product may not sue the manufacturer in tort to recover solely economic losses caused by the defect. Moorman, 91 Ill.2d at 88, 61 Ill.Dec. 746, 435 N.E.2d 443 (When the defect is of a qualitative nature and the harm relates to the consumer's expectation that a product is of a particular quality so that it is fit for ordinary use, contract, rather than tort, law provides the appropriate set of rules for recovery). In Anderson Electric, Inc. v. Ledbetter Erection Corp., 115 Ill.2d 146, 104 Ill.Dec. 689, 503 N.E.2d 246 (1986), this court extended the Moorman doctrine to contracts for services, which would seem to include the veterinary care at issue in the present case. The exception to the doctrine upon which plaintiffs rely was articulated in Moorman itself. This court noted that [t]ort theory is appropriately suited for personal injury or property damage resulting from a sudden or dangerous occurrence   . The remedy for economic loss, loss relating to a purchaser's disappointed expectations due to deterioration, internal breakdown or nonaccidental cause, on the other hand, lies in contract. Moorman, 91 Ill.2d at 86, 61 Ill.Dec. 746, 435 N.E.2d 443. This court had in mind fires, explosions, or other calamitous occurrences due to the failure of a product and the resulting risk of harm to persons or property. Moorman, 91 Ill.2d at 84-86, 61 Ill.Dec. 746, 435 N.E.2d 443. The circuit court concluded that count I of the amended complaint, negligence, was barred by the Moorman doctrine. The appellate court reversed. With respect to the negligence count, the appellate court found that laceration with a scalpel is sudden, as compared to the gradual deterioration of the grain storage tank that was at issue in Moorman. 375 Ill.App.3d at 458, 314 Ill.Dec. 446, 874 N.E.2d 542. The appellate court also reasoned that the occurrence was dangerous, because surgery is inherently dangerous and because plaintiffs allege that this particular procedure was very risky. 375 Ill.App.3d at 458, 314 Ill.Dec. 446, 874 N.E.2d 542. We note that application of the sudden and dangerous exception to the Moorman doctrine to the conduct of one who has contracted to provide a service, as opposed to the failure of a product, is awkward at best. We also observe that the appellate court's reasoning could lead to inconsistent results in similar cases. If veterinary surgery is sudden and dangerous, the owner of an animal could seek a remedy in tort if he alleged malpractice in the performance of veterinary surgery, but he would be limited by Moorman to a contractual remedy if he alleged that the veterinarian misdiagnosed a disease or condition or failed to render the proper nonsurgical treatment. Nevertheless, we find it unnecessary to review the appellate court's reasoning on this issue. Defendant's petition for leave to appeal lists  Moorman Doctrine as one of the points relied upon for reversal. However, the doctrine is only briefly referred to in the remainder of the petition. Defendant wonders how, if veterinary surgery is sudden and dangerous, it can be expected to be performed in a professional manner. He concludes that he firmly believes that the Moorman Doctrine applies to this set of facts. Veterinary surgery is not sudden nor dangerous to the point that it falls within the ambit of the recognized exception to the Doctrine. In defendant's brief to this court, he did not provide argument in support of these conclusory remarks. Indeed, the sole mention of the Moorman doctrine is a statement that plaintiffs have recourse to the Court of Claims, [w]hether or not the Moorman Doctrine applies. Counsel for defendant made no mention of Moorman at oral argument. A reviewing court is entitled to have issues clearly defined with relevant authority cited. In re Marriage of Bates, 212 Ill.2d 489, 517, 289 Ill.Dec. 218, 819 N.E.2d 714 (2004). Defendant mentioned the Moorman issue, but neither clearly defined it nor argued its merits. We, therefore, find the issue forfeited. See Bates, 212 Ill.2d at 517, 289 Ill.Dec. 218, 819 N.E.2d 714 (allowing the appellate court judgment to stand where the petitioner fail[ed] to give this court an adequate basis to grant her relief on this issue).