Court Opinion

ID: 9718105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:17:07.487026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:40:57.416407
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COOK, specially concurring: Section 876 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts discusses when one person can be liable for the tortious conduct of another when that conduct harms a third person. Section 876 does not expand negligence liability or create a new form of liability but rather sets forth three instances where more than one person can be a contributing tortfeasor for one negligent act. To paraphrase section 876, a person is liable for harm resulting to a third from the tortious conduct of another when (1) the parties acted together to commit the tort; (2) one party (a) knows another party’s conduct is tortious; and (b) gives that party substantial assistance or encouragement; (3) one party’s act substantially assisted another to commit a tort and that party’s action by itself could have constituted a tort. The first and third examples involve instances where the party’s own actions constituted a tort. The second example involves a case where the person did not commit an act that would be a tort, but that person gave substantial assistance or encouragement to another party whose actions constituted a tort and that person knew that the other person’s conduct constituted a tort. Substantial assistance alone is never enough to open a person to liability. If substantial assistance alone were enough, the result would be “but for” liability; had it not been for the person’s substantial assistance, the injury would not have occurred. This would expand negligence liability well beyond what section 876 of the Restatement describes. The court in Fortae v. Holland, 334 Ill. App. 3d 705, 778 N.E.2d 159 (2002), teetered on just that expansion. The Fortae court first approved of “in-concert liability” jury instructions submitted to the jury noting that “Illinois courts have not fully colored in the law regarding in-concert liability ***. There was no requirement that plaintiff prove that [defendant’s] actions fit under the standard definition of negligence, in addition to proving that [defendant] violated a duty to not act in concert with a tortfeasor who caused harm to plaintiff.” Fortae, 334 Ill. App. 3d at 716, 778 N.E.2d at 168-69. While the jury instructions accurately summarized subsections (b) and (c) of section 876, the instructions were unnecessary as “in-concert” liability does not create a new form of liability. The court could have simply instructed the jury based on the Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Civil, No. 10.01 (2006), defining negligence: “When I use the word ‘negligence’ in these instructions, I mean the failure to do something which a reasonably careful person would do, or the doing of something which a reasonably careful person would not do, under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence. The law does not say how a reasonably careful person would act under those circumstances. That is for you to decide.” After approving the jury instructions, the Fortae court went on to describe how defendant was liable under subsection (b) of section 876. The court concluded that a driver escorting a semi truck carrying a mobile home was liable under “in concert” liability because the escort driver “(b) [knew] that [the semi truck driver’s] conduct constituted] a breach of duty and [gave] substantial assistance or encouragement to the [semi truck driver].” Restatement (Second) of Torts §876(b), at 315 (1977). While the Fortae court claimed to support the idea that “in-concert liability is not a panoply for liability whenever one party’s actions would not have occurred but for the actions of another,” the court went on to find the escort driver liable merely for giving the semi truck driver “substantial assistance.” The first problem with Fortae’s reasoning is that the court essentially determined that it was the escort driver’s role that gave rise to “substantial assistance.” The court stated: “[P]laintiff presented evidence that Holland [(the escort driver)] gave substantial assistance to Akers [(the semi truck driver)]. The nature of the act of negligently driving is directly connected to the relationship between Holland and Akers. Holland’s relation to the other (Akers) as an escort vehicle weighs in favor of the assistance being substantial. Akers’ testimony that he had previously warned Holland on the radio that he could not make abrupt stops also indicates a state of mind on the part of Holland which supports a finding of substantial assistance. In addition, Holland’s presence was necessary for the commission of the tort, and indeed, he was physically involved in the traffic accident. Therefore, the jury had sufficient evidence to conclude that Holland substantially assisted Akers in acting negligently.” (Emphasis added.) Fortae, 334 Ill. App. 3d at 720, 778 N.E.2d at 171-72. The court found substantial assistance not because the escort driver did something beyond escorting the semi truck driver. The court found substantial assistance because he was the escort driver and part of the accident. The bigger issue is that the Fortae court failed to address whether the escort driver knew that the semi truck driver’s conduct constituted a breach of duty. The court concluded the jury had “sufficient evidence to conclude that Holland substantially assisted Akers in acting negligently.” Fortae, 334 Ill. App. 3d at 720, 778 N.E.2d at 172. Substantial assistance by itself is not enough. Under subsection (b) of section 876, the court must also show that when the escort driver was substantially assisting the semi truck driver, the escort driver knew that the semi truck driver’s conduct constituted a breach of duty. Ultimately, the court found that “but for” the escort driver’s “act” of failing to prevent the semi truck driver from driving too closely, the harm would not have resulted. This expansion of vicarious liability was never intended under section 876. In the two Illinois cases cited in Fortae, Wolf v. Liberis, 153 Ill. App. 3d 488, 505 N.E.2d 1202 (1987), and Umble v. Sandy McKie & Sons, Inc., 294 Ill. App. 3d 449, 690 N.E.2d 157 (1998), the courts recognized that “in-concert” liability did not expand liability to include “but for” liability. The Fortae court, while acknowledging Wolf and Umble, failed to follow their reasonings. In Umble, the court noted that the defendant’s acts of repairing a tire for an obviously intoxicated person who injured another did not qualify for in-concert liability. The court noted that the act of repairing the tire was not “inherently wrongful” and the repair man “did not actively encourage” the intoxicated person to engage in wrongful activity. Umble, 294 Ill. App. 3d at 452, 690 N.E.2d at 159. In Wolf, the court recognized that the defendant’s act of getting intoxicated and causing her fiancé to follow her as she drove home did not make her liable when, after she was no longer with her fiancé, he was involved in a car accident in his own vehicle that killed a third person. While the injuries to the third persons in both of these cases would not have happened “but for” the acts of the defendants, that alone should not open the defendants to liability. To avoid inappropriately expanding negligence liability, a person who provides substantial assistance to one who commits a tort may also be liable only if that person knew the other was committing the tort or that person’s substantial assistance by itself constituted a breach of duty. Plaintiff may state a cause of action in this case if plaintiff alleges facts indicating the escort driver did something that a reasonable escort driver would not have done. Plaintiff does not state a cause of action, however, if plaintiff simply alleges that the escort driver provided substantial assistance.