Court Opinion

ID: 9729623
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:45:11.140938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:00.269860
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I respectfully dissent as to the question of conflict between instruction No. 16 and Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Civil, No. 105.05 (2d ed. 1971). As to the other aspects of the majority’s opinion, I concur. The majority correctly delineates the potential conflict between the two instructions concerning parental authorization of medical procedures, but resolves it erroneously, in my view. It is a standard principle of interpretation that the particular will control over the general. (See Bray v. Industrial Comm’n (1987), 161 Ill. App. 3d 87, 513 N.E.2d 1045.) In this particular situation, the proper interpretation would be to consider section 2 of the Surgical Procedures Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 111, par. 4502) as the general and section 608 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 40, par. 608(a)) as the particular. Since section 608 defines the particular status of “parent” in the situation of a divorced couple with children over whom they can exert custodial control, it would be the predicate in defining that same term as found in section 2. Given those circumstances, plaintiffs’ contention is correct that the sections cited above are in conflict and that the jury was improperly instructed since, in the circumstances of this case, defendants’ instruction No. 16 improperly states the law. Although I agree with the majority that in certain limited circumstances a trial court may amplify or clarify IPI instructions in its discretion (see Balestri v. Terminal Freight Cooperative Association (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 451, 394 N.E.2d 391, cert, denied (1980), 444 U.S. 1018, 62 L. Ed. 2d 648, 100 S. Ct. 671), in this circumstance, the trial court did so in a manner which did not accurately reflect the applicable law. I would therefore reverse and remand for new trial.