Court Opinion

ID: 9534015
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:36:16.577599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:18.713827
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HARRISON, dissenting: For the reasons stated by the appellate court in its well-reasoned opinion, I would hold that a plaintiff need not plead and prove physical contact or threat of physical contact in order to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress under the FELA. Imposing a physical contact requirement where emotional distress has been inflicted intentionally is nonsensical. It does not comport with the accepted view of the law in the United States. More importantly, it is contrary to the broad remedial purposes of the FELA. Although the Seventh Circuit’s decisions support the majority’s opinion, that court’s analysis is intellectually and legally untenable. And it is not binding on us. In the end, the only thing that commends the Seventh Circuit’s view is that it will help us achieve consistency with the federal courts. In my view, however, there is no virtue in making the law consistently wrong. That litigants in the lower federal courts must suffer the Seventh Circuit’s rulings is no reason to inflict those rulings on litigants who have the good sense or good fortune to have their cases heard in the courts of Illinois. The circuit court properly denied the railroad’s motion for summary judgment. Its order, and the judgment of the appellate court upholding that order, should be affirmed.