Court Opinion

ID: 9739714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:19:58.106826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:13.612869
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McMORROW, dissenting: I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that a plaintiff-bystander should not be allowed to recover damages for emotional distress injuries in a strict product liability cause of action. The majority’s position lacks logic and leads to arbitrary results. The majority allows plaintiffs who seek recovery for emotional distress injuries under a negligence theory to recover for emotional injuries, yet denies plaintiffs suing under a strict liability theory recovery for emotional injuries. Further, the evolution of Illinois case law in the direction of compensating plaintiffs for emotional distress damages supports the allowance of recovery in strict liability causes of action. Finally, the policy considerations that justify the imposition of strict liability on sellers and manufacturers of defective products, and the rationale for compensating victims who suffer emotional injuries in negligence actions favor the position that emotional distress damages should be compensable in strict liability actions. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent. In Illinois, a plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress injuries in a negligence action. (See Rickey v. Chicago Transit Authority (1983), 98 Ill. 2d 546; Corgan v. Meuhling (1991), 143 Ill. 2d 296.) However, our courts have declined to permit recovery for emotional distress damages in actions based on strict liability. (Woodill v. Parke Davis & Co. (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 26; Rahn v. Gerdts (1983), 119 Ill. App. 3d 781.) Logically, it is difficult to reconcile these two positions. To sustain a cause of action in negligence, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty and an injury proximately caused by the breach. (Ward v. K mart Corp. (1990), 136 Ill. 2d 132, 140.) In a strict product liability action, plaintiffs "must prove that their injury or damage resulted from a condition of the product, that the condition was an unreasonably dangerous one and that the condition existed at the time it left the manufacturer’s control.” Suvada v. White Motor Co. (1965), 32 Ill. 2d 612, 623. One of the key differences between negligence actions and strict liability actions is that in a strict liability action the plaintiff need not prove negligent conduct on the part of the defendant. (See Suvada, 32 Ill. 2d at 623.) In other words, the element of "fault” or unreasonable conduct necessary in negligence actions need, not be proved in actions based on a theory of strict liability. (W. Keeton, Prosser & Keeton on Torts § 75, at 536-38 (5th ed, 1984).) Both negligence and strict tort liability law share the common purpose of compensating persons injured at the hand of another. However, the elimination of the fault element in strict liability claims bears upon the liability aspect of tort claims, and does not logically alter or diminish the personal injury damages to which the plaintiff is entitled. The law of products liability in Illinois mandates that if a defendant manufactures and puts into commerce a product in an unreasonably dangerous condition, and if that product causes injury to a consumer, that defendant may be held liable for such personal injuries. (Suvada, 32 Ill. 2d 612.) It is arbitrary and illogical to maintain that such a defendant must compensate the injured person for only physical injuries, but not injuries from emotional trauma. The allowance of recovery for severe emotional distress damages to a plaintiff-bystander whose lawsuit is based on a negligence theory is inconsistent with denial of recovery for the same severe emotional distress injuries in a lawsuit based on a strict product liability theory. The injuries in both causes of action may be identical, the defendant’s conduct which supports liability in both causes of action may be identical, and the defendant’s duty to the plaintiff may also be identical. The difference in theories of liability does not justify a difference in the allowance of certain compensable damages. Oratorically questioning, what valid basis, and none has been offered by the majority (the majority’s arguments relate to "liability” or fault issues) nor Woodill nor the Restatement, is there for treating plaintiff’s injuries differently in these two causes of action? The progression of Illinois case law toward permitting plaintiffs to recover damages for emotional distress supports the allowance of recovery for emotional distress injuries in strict liability cases. For example, in Knierim v. Izzo (1961), 22 Ill. 2d 73, this court ruled that a plaintiff need not allege physical injury or symptoms in order to maintain an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court reasoned that "[t]he stronger emotions when sufficiently aroused do produce symptoms that are visible to the professional eye and *** jurors from their own experience will be able to determine whether outrageous conduct results in severe emotional disturbance.” (Knierim, 22 Ill. 2d at 85.) In Rickey, 98 Ill. 2d 546, this court eliminated the requirement of a contemporaneous injury or impact as a prerequisite to recovery for negligently caused emotional distress. More recently, this court in Corgan held that the victim of a defendant’s negligence need not allege physical symptoms or injuries to recover damages for emotional distress, noting that "[i]n the 30 years since Knierim, this court has not lost its faith in the ability of jurors to fairly determine what is, and is not, emotional distress.” (Corgan, 143 Ill. 2d at 312.) The law recognizes that people may suffer both physical and emotional injuries. It is inequitable to make compensation for emotional distress injuries dependent on the theory upon which the plaintiff establishes the defendant’s liability. In light of this precedent, allowing plaintiffs to recover damages for such injuries in strict liability actions is a logical and salutary extension of Illinois law. The majority relies primarily on section 402A of the Restatement and the 1980 case of Woodill v. Parke Davis & Co. to deny recovery for emotional distress damages. In Woodill, this court summarily adopted the decision of the appellate court to conclude that emotional distress damages could not be recovered in a strict liability action. (Woodill, 79 Ill. 2d at 38.) The appellate court in Woodill reasoned that because the Restatement "provides that '[o]ne who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer ***’ ” no cause of action existed in strict liability for emotional distress damages. (Emphasis in original.) (Woodill v. Parke Davis & Co. (1978), 58 Ill. App. 3d 349, 355, quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965).) The court also noted that "at present, Illinois recognizes no such action.” Woodill, 58 Ill. App. 3d at 355. Woodill, the only precedent of this court which supports the majority’s conclusion that no action for emotional injuries exists based on a strict liability theory, sets forth no analysis, rationale or logic to explain its position. Further, Woodill was decided when Illinois only allowed recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Since Woodill, Illinois law has progressed to allow recovery for emotional injuries based on negligent conduct. (See Rickey v. Chicago Transit Authority (1983), 98 Ill. 2d 546.) Both Woodill and the majority adopt section 402A of the Restatement which states that a plaintiff suing under a strict product liability theory can recover for "physical harm” caused. However, the Restatement also fails to offer an analysis explaining the reasons that victims should not be allowed to recover for emotional injuries in strict product liability actions. (See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965).) Neither Woodill nor the Restatement offers a logical analysis because, as previously discussed, there is no logical justification for reducing the injuries for which a plaintiff may recover simply because plaintiff’s burden of proving liability has been eased due to public policy concerns. Additionally, the policy considerations that justify the imposition of strict liability on sellers and manufacturers of defective products support the proposition that such defendants should be held liable for both physical and emotional injuries caused by their products. "[I]t seems obvious that public interest in human life and health, the invitations and solicitations to purchase the product and the justice of imposing the loss on the one creating the risk and reaping the profit are present *** in cases involving motor vehicles and other products ***.” (Suvada, 32 Ill. 2d at 619.) Strict product liability law also seeks to deter the sale of unsafe products and compensate injured victims. (Corboy, The Not-So-Quiet Revolution: Rebuilding Barriers to Jury Trial in the Proposed Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 1043, 1058 (1994).) In Corgan, this court stated in unqualified terms that emotional injuries are very real injuries, which are discernable by juries. (Corgan, 143 Ill. 2d at 311-12.) In light of this court’s recognition of the realties of emotional distress in Corgan, emotional trauma such as that alleged in the case at bar is an "injury” to a person to the same extent as a broken bone, a laceration or an injured back. Illinois has placed the burden of paying for injuries caused by defective products on the enterprises that place such products in the marketplace, and the law recognizes that a person may suffer from both physical and emotional injuries. It is inequitable to make compensation for such injuries dependent on the theory upon which the plaintiff establishes the defendant’s liability. David has shown that he was in the zone of physical danger; that due to the failure of the defendant’s defective bellhousing he had a reasonable fear for his own safety; that he has suffered from severe emotional distress; and that he was in such proximity to the accident that there was a high risk to him of physical impact. (See Rickey, 98 Ill. 2d 546; Corgan, 143 Ill. 2d 296.) David was sitting next to his wife as she was partially decapitated. In fact parts of her body struck him. He touched her face and head, and then carried her to the ambulance knowing that she was dead. David has alleged many of the traumatic neuroses noted in Corgan. (Corgan, 143 Ill. 2d at 311.) Considering the facts of this case, David has suffered severe injuries as a result of witnessing his wife’s violent death. The majority’s position creates an arbitrary and hollow distinction, unsupportable in light of the development of the law of emotional distress damages. I would hold that the trial court should have instructed the jury on David’s claim for emotional distress damages. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. JUSTICE HARRISON joins in this dissent.