Court Opinion

ID: 9723156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:04:07.427093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:45.147600
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, dissenting: Contrary to the majority’s assertion, I do not believe the Commission misapplied the so-called aggressor defense. Admittedly, prior cases employ the definite article (“the”) when identifying aggressors who are excluded from compensation. But I cannot see why this approach deserves a future monopoly. The mere fact that prior cases facilitated findings of a sole responsible party does not eliminate the possibility of a scenario involving combatants whose aggression truly qualifies as mutual. The policy behind the aggressor defense is clear: to exclude benefits for injuries that are “traceable to [the employee’s] own voluntary acts.” Ford Motor Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 78 Ill. 2d 260, 263 (1980). The relevant inquiry is whether the claimant was “responsible for the aggression.” Ford Motor Co., 78 Ill. 2d at 262. Accordingly, compensation should be denied to both perpetrators of mutual aggression. Awarding benefits to either employee in such a scenario would contravene the policy accounting for the very existence of the defense. The majority overlooks this fact by devoting its attention to the difference between definite and indefinite articles (“the” versus “an”). In many cases such a difference matters; however, it is a red herring where multiple employees remove themselves from the scope of their employment by voluntarily engaging in aggression. The majority’s analysis is, I believe, too wedded to semantics suggesting we lack the authority to structure the defense in a way that serves its purpose. I respectfully disagree.