Justia Illinois Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The plaintiffs sought damages for wrongful-birth and negligent infliction of emotional distress, based on medical-provider defendants' failure to inform them that their older child had a genetic mutation. They claim that they would not have conceived a second child if they had been given correct information. The trial court held that damages available in a wrongful-birth action do not include the extraordinary costs of caring for a disabled child after he reaches the age of majority. The appellate court held that plaintiff parents in a wrongful-birth case may recover damages for the cost of caring for their dependent,disabled, adult child and that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Illinois Supreme Court remanded, noting a question of fact concerning when the limitations period began to run. The court affirmed the holding that the plaintiffs have a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress; the "zone of danger" test does not apply when damages for emotional distress are an element of another tort. The court reversed and reinstated the judgment that plaintiffs may not recover damages for the postmajority expenses of caring for their son; damages incurred after the age of majority are incurred by the child, who suffered no legal harm.

During a traffic stop, a gun was recovered from a latched compartment in the backseat armrest of defendant's car. The defendant was charged with two counts: aggravated unlawful use of a weapon based on carrying an âuncased, loaded and immediately accessibleâ firearm in his vehicle (720 ILCS 5/24â1.6) and based on carrying a firearm in a vehicle âat a time when he was not on his own land or in his own abode or fixed place of businessâ and had ânot been issued a currently valid Firearm Ownerâs Identification Card.â The jury returned a general verdict of guilty. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed and remanded. A conviction on the first count cannot be upheld because it is undisputed that the gun was contained in a latched compartment. The trial court also erred in refusing to allow the defendant to produce evidence that he had a valid Indiana FOID card. The court declined to sustain the conviction on a lesser included charge of unlawful use of a weapon because it was not clear from the general verdict that the jury concluded that the gun was loaded and accessible.

Phoenix Insurance Company ("Phoenix") filed a complaint in circuit court rejecting the arbitration award given to appellee when she requested coverage under the underinsured-motorist provisions of her policy with Phoenix after she was injured in a car accident and the other driver's vehicle was underinsured. At issue was whether a provision allowing either party to an insurance contract to demand a trial de novo following arbitration was unenforceable when it appeared in an underinsured-motorist policy. The court held that the provision in appellee's underinsured-motorist policy allowing either party to reject an award over the statutory minimum for liability coverage did not violate public policy and was not unconscionable.

Defendant was indicted on one count of aggravated drinking under the influence ("DUI") when he was involved in a car accident that killed two people and subsequent tests revealed that his blood contained no alcohol or controlled substances, but his urine contained methamphetamine and amphetamine. At issue was whether the appellate court erred in holding that the state failed to prove that defendant was guilty of aggravated DUI where it presented no evidence of a causal link between a trace amount of methamphetamine found in his urine and the car accident and whether the appellate court erred in holding that the state proved that he was guilty of misdemeanor DUI. The court reversed the appellate court's judgment and held that the state satisfied its burden of proof of misdemeanor DUI where, although the evidence did not establish exactly when defendant last used methamphetamine, a rational jury could have found that his last use was sufficiently recent that some remnants of the drug remained in his urine on the night of the accident. The court also held that defendant's driving was a proximate cause of the victims' death and therefore, defendant was guilty of aggravated DUI.

Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and sentenced to nine years in prison after he was arrested during a Chicago police narcotics surveillance operation. At issue was whether the trial court's error in delaying its ruling on defendant's motion in limine to exclude his prior convictions from use as impeachment until after he testified was harmless or reversible. The court held that the trial court's error was harmless where, if the error was removed, a retrial would end up with the same result when the state's case was strong and in light of the inconsistent theory of the defense.

Defendants were each issued a citation for driving under the influence where, in each instance, the first appearance date listed on the citation was beyond the period prescribed by Supreme Court Rule 504. At issue was whether the circuit courts abused their discretion in dismissing the charges with prejudice based on findings that the state did not present any evidence that it was impracticable to comply with Rule 504's time limitations where defendants announced "ready for trial" on his respective appearance date and where the state's failure to proceed to trial at that time constituted a failure to prosecute. The court held that even if the circuit courts had discretion to dismiss due to Rule 504 violations at the time they were decided, the circuit courts abused their discretion in failing to require a showing of prejudice to defendants.