Court Opinion

ID: 9744132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:54:25.410217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:46.913513
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE RYAN, dissenting: I must dissent from the opinion adopted by the majority because it totally ignores the previous construetion which this court has given to the statute in question (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 68, par. 1, now found in Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 40, par. 1001). The General Assembly has acquiesced in this construction for almost 20 years. We are therefore not free to now say that the statute means something different just because it is being applied in a different context. The opinion states: “From our examination of the authorities we conclude that prior to the 1953 amendment of the statute (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1951, ch. 68, par. 1) one spouse could bring an action in tort against the other during coverture (Brandt v. Keller (1952), 413 Ill. 503) and that the effect of the 1953 amendment was not to destroy the cause of action of the injured spouse but to confer immunity on the tortfeasor spouse, which like a defense based upon the statute of limitations can be waived by the defendant spouse.” (Emphasis added.) 77 Ill. 2d at 390. Almost 20 years ago, in Heckendorn v. First National Bank (1960), 19 Ill. 2d 190, in construing this same statute, this court stated: “The legislature created a statutory disability during the lifetime of the parties. Its intent was to prevent a cause of action from coming into being. If a cause of action could not exist in favor of the wife and against the tort-feasor husband, it could not survive his death.” (Emphasis added.) (Heckendorn v. First National Bank (1960), 19 Ill. 2d 190, 193.) The holding of Heckendorn was reaffirmed by this court 6 years later in Wartell v. Formusa (1966), 34 Ill. 2d 57, and, as noted later in this dissent, has been acknowledged by the court as being the accepted construction of this statute. Thus, the statute has not been construed as creating an immunity from suit that can be raised as a defense or waived by one spouse when sued by the other, as the majority opinion holds. Under the previous construction, the cause of action does not exist in favor of the injured spouse against the tortfeasor. Under our previous construction, the fact that the uninsured motorist provision of an insurance policy permits payment of the sum the insured “shall be legally entitled to recover” would not, in our case, permit the injured wife to recover under the policy, because she has no cause of action against her husband and therefore is not legally entitled to recover from him. The majority opinion distinguishes Markham v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (10th Cir. 1972), 464 F.2d 703, pointing out that “under Oklahoma law a parent has no cause of action based upon tort against an unemancipated child.” (77 Ill. 2d at 389.) The distinction is nonexistent because, under the previous construction placed on our statute, the wife has no cause of action in tort against her husband. At this term, our court adopted an opinion in Union Electric Co. v. Illinois Commerce Com. (1979), 77 Ill. 2d 364. In that case we held that the previous construction which had been placed on section 30 of the Public Utilities Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 111 2/3, par. 30) precluded us from considering the relative merits of the “original cost” method as against the “fair value” method of determining rate base for the utilities. We there stated that we need not speculate which of the two methods we would accept “were we writing on a clean slate.” (77 Ill. 2d 364, 379.) The previous decisions of this court consistently construed the statute as requiring that the reasonable return to the utility be based on the “fair value” of its property. We stated that under these facts it would be a usurpation of legislative power for this court to now abandon the “fair value” method and apply the “original cost” method: “The construction this court has placed upon the Act has in effect become a part of the Act, and a change in that construction by this court would amount to amending the statute. The power to accomplish this does not lie in the courts. [Citations.] ” 77 Ill. 2d 364, 381. The same reasoning applies to the statute in question (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 68, par. 1). The part of that statute involved in this litigation — “provided, that neither husband nor wife may sue the other for a tort to the person committed during coverture” — was not in the original enactment. It was added in 1953 in response to this court’s holding in Brandt v. Keller (1952), 413 Ill. 503, in which this court construed the statute (sometimes called the married woman’s act of 1874 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1951, ch. 68, par. 1)) as removing a married woman’s common law disability and permitting her to sue her husband. In Heckendorn this court noted that, in the next session of the General Assembly following the decision in Brandt, the statute was amended by adding the priviso set out above and under consideration in this case. In Heckendorn this court stated the legislative intent in amending the statute was to prevent a cause of action from coming into being. As noted above, this construction was followed by this court in Wartell v. Formusa. In Packenham v. Miltimore (1967), 89 Ill. App. 2d 452, 455, the appellate court noted that Heckendorn had construed the 1953 amendment as barring “the cause of action from coming into being.” Also, in Herget National Bank v. Berardi (1976), 64 Ill. 2d 467, this court, referring to its previous decisions in Heckendorn and Wartell, stated: “This court held in each case that the action was barred by the amendment enacted after the decision in Brandt. ” (Emphasis added.) (Herget National Bank v. Berardi (1976), 64 Ill. 2d 467, 472.) Thus, since this court’s construction of the amendment in 1960, it has been the consistent interpretation of the language we are now considering that the 1953 amendment prevented the cause of action from coming into being. The amendment has not been construed as the majority opinion now holds — that the wife has a cause of action and that the amendment creates an immunity which the husband may waive. The majority opinion does not cite Heckendorn, Wartell, Herget National Bank or Packenham. It also does not suggest why the construction placed upon the statute by those cases should now be abandoned after a 20-year history of acceptance. We also note that the statute has been amended at various times since this court’s decision in Heckendorn. However, the language which was construed in Heckendorn has not been changed. As we pointed in Union Electric, adopted by this court at this term, subsequent amendments to an act without changes in language that this court has construed are strong evidence that the construction conforms to the legislative intent. As we stated in Union Electric, the construction has now become a part of the statute which we are not at liberty to change. I fear the majority opinion has usurped the authority of the legislature by now giving an entirely different meaning to the statute under consideration. I must therefore respectfully dissent. MR. JUSTICE UNDERWOOD joins in this dissent.