Court Opinion

ID: 9713088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:07:31.969762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:16.547748
License: Public Domain

Supplemental Opinion on Denial of Rehearing The employer has filed a petition for rehearing urging, inter alia, that the holding in this case be given only prospective application. The Illinois Defense Counsel, as amicus curiae, pursuant to leave granted, has filed a motion “to invoke doctrine of prospective operation.” Although not in agreement with either the employer or amicus as to the manner in which the “prospective operation” should apply, the manufacturer has also filed suggestions urging “prospective operation.” We have considered the arguments and have unanimously concluded that there are present here many of the problems and conditions which compelled the prospective application of the decisions in Molitor v. Kaneland Community Unit District No. 302, 18 Ill. 2d 11, and Renslow v. Mennonite Hospital, 67 Ill. 2d 348, and that this decision, too, should be prospective in operation. We hold, therefore, that the decisions in this cause, Stevens v. Silver Manufacturing Co. (1977), 70 Ill. 2d 41, and Robinson v. International Harvester Co. (1977), 70 Ill. 2d 47, will apply prospectively to causes of action arising out of occurrences on and after March 1, 1978.