Court Opinion

ID: 9525439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:03:44.783477+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:47.382479
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, dissenting: I dissent. In my opinion the appellate court correctly held that the jury should have been instructed that there was a presumption that a minor under the age of 14 years was free from contributory negligence. Citing Coal Creek Drainage and Levee District v. Sanitary District, 336 Ill. 11, Lohr v. Barkmann Cartage Co., 335 Ill. 335, Bollenbach v. Bloomenthal, 341 Ill. 539, Miller v. Pettengill, 392 Ill. 117, and McElroy v. Force, 38 Ill. 2d 528, the majority concludes that “The prevailing view that a presumption ceases to operate in the face of contrary evidence has generally been followed in Illinois.” (65 Ill. 2d at 102.) Assuming arguendo the correctness of the majority’s conclusion the flaw in its treatment of the question is that it has attempted to apply the same rule to all presumptions whereas it is clear from the decisions of this court that all presumptions are not alike. Coal Creek involved a contention that the population in the sanitary district was presumed to be the same in 1922 as at the time of the prior census; Lohr involved the presumption that the driver of a truck was the owner’s agent; Bollenbach involved a contention that res ipsa loquitur applied in an action brought by a patient against a dentist; Miller involved the contention that “in the absence of a fixed time for the performance of an agreement a reasonable time will be presumed to have been intended by the parties”; McElroy involved the presumption that the owner of an automobile was driving it at the time of a collision. Coal Creek, Bollenbach and Miller are not in point. In Lohr and McElroy, unlike this case, the presumptions served, in lieu of evidence, to make a prima facie case on a factual issue amenable to proof and which upon introduction of contrary evidence became inoperative. The presumption that a child between the ages of 7 and 14 is incapable of negligence arises as a matter of law upon proof of the child’s age. The fact question presented to the jury was not whether the deceased was incapable of negligence; the fact question was whether the child used that degree of care which a reasonably careful minor of his age, capacity and experience would use under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence. The presumption is not conclusive, but unless the jury is instructed concerning it, it is rendered meaningless, and the minor’s conduct, under the circumstances shown, is judged without the benefit of the presumption. An analogous situation is the presumption in an action for wrongful death. Regardless of the nature and amount of evidence to the contrary the jury is to be instructed concerning the presumption that the lineal next of kin have suffered substantial pecuniary loss. (See Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Civil Nos. 31.01, 31.03, 31.04, 31.06.) This presumption, too, is not conclusive (Flynn v. Vancil, 41 Ill. 2d 236), but unless the jury is properly instructed it is rendered meaningless. The basic inconsistency of the majority’s position is demonstrated by the following statement, “In the case at bar, the jury was properly instructed that the plaintiff had the burden of proving that plaintiff’s decedent was using ordinary care for his own safety at the time of the accident. Had there been no evidence that the decedent failed to exercise the degree of care which a reasonably careful minor of the same age, mental capacity and experience would exercise under the circumstances, then the rebuttable presumption that a child 13 years of age is incapable of negligence would have been operable and it might have been appropriate under those circumstances to instruct the jury as to the existence of the presumption.” (65 Ill. 2d at 103.) If the majority is correct that upon introduction of evidence the presumption ceases to operate, then logic would require that if there were no such evidence the jury be directed to find for the plaintiff on that issue. In Maskaliunas v. Chicago and Western Indiana R.R. Co., 318 Ill. 142, 149-50, the court said, “[Wjhile there has been some slight deviation in a few cases in the application of the rule by this court, it is fairly well established by this court and courts of other jurisdictions that a child under seven years of age is conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence, and that in the case of a child above the age of fourteen years the same rule shall be applied to him in that regard as is applied to adults, his intelligence and experience being considered. The law is clearly established by great weight of authority, that between the ages of seven and fourteen the question of culpability of the child is an open question of fact and must be left to the jury to determine, taking into consideration the age, capacity, intelligence and experience of the child.” In this case the jury was instructed in the language of a section of the Illinois Vehicle Code and then told “If you decide that the plaintiff’s decedent violated the statute on the occasion in question, then you may consider that fact together with all the other facts and circumstances in evidence in determining whether or not the plaintiff’s decedent was contributorily negligent before and at the time of the occurrence.” It was further instructed in the language of IPI Civil No. 10.05 that “The law does not say how such a minor would act under those circumstances. That is for you to decide,” and in the language of IPI Civil No. 10.06 that “The rule I have just stated also applies when a minor is charged with having violated a statute.” The effect of these instructions, in the absence of an instruction that the decedent was presumed to be incapable of contributory negligence, was to hold the decedent to the same standard of care that applied to a child over the age of 14 years. WARD, C.J. and CREBS, J., join in this dissent.