{
  "id": 3546083,
  "name": "KAREN MAGA, Indiv. and as Special Adm'r of the Estate of Donald Maga, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOTOROLA, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Maga v. Motorola, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1987-11-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 87\u2014347",
  "first_page": "524",
  "last_page": "530",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "163 Ill. App. 3d 524"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "382 N.E.2d 1211",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 Ill. 2d 78",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5440611
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "86"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/73/0078-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "478 N.E.2d 871",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1957,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "133 Ill. App. 3d 226",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3529350
      ],
      "year": 1957,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "229"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/133/0226-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "162 Ill. App. 3d 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3509352
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "4"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/162/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "470 N.E.2d 34",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "128 Ill. App. 3d 84",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3526089
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/128/0084-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "496 N.E.2d 1179",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "146 Ill. App. 3d 116",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3572425
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/146/0116-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "468 N.E.2d 1228",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 Ill. 2d 505",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3156104
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/102/0505-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "499 N.E.2d 1373",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 Ill. 2d 107",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5542407
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/114/0107-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "146 N.E.2d 82",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Ill. App. 2d 369",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5175005
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "373"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/15/0369-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "502 N.E.2d 474",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 Ill. App. 3d 971",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3501994
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "973-74"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/150/0971-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "388 N.E.2d 906",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 Ill. App. 3d 889",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5575804
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "894"
        },
        {
          "page": "894"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/70/0889-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1853 Ill. Laws 97",
      "category": "laws:leg_session",
      "reporter": "Ill. Laws",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "\"An Act requiring compensation for causing death by wrongful act, neglect or default\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 N.E.2d 758",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "309 Ill. App. 628",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        3374849
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "633"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/309/0628-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 N.E.2d 634",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1941,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 Ill. App. 2d 239",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5149187
      ],
      "year": 1941,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "242"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/8/0239-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "509 N.E.2d 166",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 Ill. App. 3d 634",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3506565
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1955,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "637"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/156/0634-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "510 N.E.2d 1208",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "157 Ill. App. 3d 1036",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3544148
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1047"
        },
        {
          "page": "1047"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/157/1036-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 N.E.2d 865",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "414 Ill. 235",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5314442
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "245"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/414/0235-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "535 F. Supp. 455",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        3429872
      ],
      "year": 1953,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "465"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/535/0455-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "216 N.E.2d 140",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 Ill. 2d 487",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2879370
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/34/0487-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "162 N.E. 170",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "330 Ill. 571",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5205259
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "582"
        },
        {
          "page": "582"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/330/0571-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "435 N.E.2d 1379",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 Ill. App. 3d 635",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3033096
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "638"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/106/0635-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "482 N.E.2d 1080",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 Ill. App. 3d 191",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3564639
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "194"
        },
        {
          "page": "194-95"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/136/0191-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 Ill. 2d 594",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "492 N.E.2d 497",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 Ill. App. 3d 937",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3451437
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "939"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/142/0937-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 631,
    "char_count": 12892,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.778,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5989947370215245e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6835329009529127
    },
    "sha256": "f244efc7fde3e583e152e8872f7178b282d8e6044a67b1883df793cb0291b807",
    "simhash": "1:f9aa77c3e3663dcd",
    "word_count": 2168
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:50:46.695850+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "KAREN MAGA, Indiv. and as Special Adm\u2019r of the Estate of Donald Maga, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOTOROLA, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE HARTMAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff appeals an order dismissing certain portions of her second amended complaint pursuant to section 2\u2014615 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 2\u2014615.) The issue certified by the circuit court in this interlocutory appeal (107 Ill. 2d R. 308) is whether plaintiff may plead an action for injuries suffered by decedent\u2019s spouse and his parents and siblings under section 2 of the Wrongful Death Act. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 70, par. 2.\nThe following facts are taken from the second amended complaint. Plaintiff\u2019s decedent, Donald Maga, was struck and killed by a truck owned by defendant Motorola, Inc. (Motorola) and operated by codefendant Robert A. Hope III (Hope), a Motorola employee, on June 14, 1980. Decedent\u2019s survivors included his wife, Karen Maga (Maga), his parents, a brother and two sisters. Decedent left no surviving children.\nPlaintiff Maga, individually and as special administratrix, filed a complaint against Motorola and Hope in 1981 and successfully moved, on January 20, 1987, for leave to file a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint sought damages under the Wrongful Death Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 70, par. 2) for alleged pecuniary losses suffered by plaintiff, as decedent\u2019s surviving spouse, and by decedent\u2019s parents and siblings, as \u201cnext of kin.\u201d\nDefendants moved to strike and dismiss those portions of the complaint pertaining to decedent\u2019s next of kin under section 2 \u2014 615 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 2\u2014615.) Defendants argued that: the Wrongful Death Act was intended to compensate a decedent\u2019s \u201csurviving spouse and next of kin\u201d; \u201cnext of kin\u201d are those blood relatives of decedent in existence at decedent\u2019s death who would take his property if decedent died intestate; under section 2 \u2014 1(c) of the Probate Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110\u00bd, par. 2\u20141(c)), where the decedent leaves no descendants, the surviving spouse of an intestate decedent takes decedent\u2019s entire estate; and, since Maga survived her husband, no claim could be made on behalf of decedent\u2019s parents or siblings. The circuit court dismissed those portions of plaintiff\u2019s second amended complaint which alleged loss to and requested relief for Donald Maga\u2019s blood relatives and pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308 (107 Ill. 2d R. 308), the circuit court certified the following question for this court\u2019s determination:\n\u201cWhether the term \u2018next of kin\u2019 as used in section 2 of the Wrongful Death Act means the persons nearest of kindred to the decedent, that is, those who are most nearly related to him by blood, or, whether said term means only those who are entitled to take under statutory distribution of intestate\u2019s estate.\nThe question of law involved may also be rephrased in the following terms[:] *** [a]re the parents and siblings of decedent, DONALD MAGA, next of kin within the meaning of section 2 of the Wrongful Death Act, so that this Wrongful Death action may be prosecuted for their benefit as well as the benefit of the surviving spouse?\u201d\nWe have allowed the interlocutory appeal.\nI\nAll well-pleaded facts in Maga\u2019s second amended complaint and all reasonable inferences taken therefrom must be taken as true in a section 2 \u2014 615 motion, for the purpose of determining whether those facts are sufficient, as a matter of law, to support a cause of action. Rothe v. Maloney Cadillac, Inc. (1986), 142 Ill. App. 3d 937, 939, 492 N.E.2d 497, appeal allowed (1986), 112 Ill. 2d 594.\nMaga\u2019s second amended complaint seeks damages under the Wrongful Death Act, under which recovery is limited to those beneficiaries named in the statute: decedent\u2019s surviving spouse and next of kin. (Rodgers v. Consolidated R.R. Corp. (1985), 136 Ill. App. 3d 191, 194, 482 N.E.2d 1080; In re Estate of Edwards (1982), 106 Ill. App. 3d 635, 638, 435 N.E.2d 1379; Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 70, par. 2.) Traditionally, Illinois courts have defined \u201cnext of kin\u201d as blood relatives in existence at the time of decedent\u2019s death who would take his or her personal property in the event decedent died intestate. (Wilcox v. Bierd (1928), 330 Ill. 571, 582, 162 N.E. 170, overruled on other grounds, McDaniel v. Bullard (1966), 34 Ill. 2d 487, 216 N.E.2d 140; see also Means v. City of Chicago (N.D. Ill. 1982), 535 F. Supp. 455, 465; Gustafson v. Consumers Sales Agency, Inc. (1953), 414 Ill. 235, 245, 110 N.E.2d 865; Dotson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1987), 157 Ill. App. 3d 1036, 1047, 510 N.E.2d 1208; Forthenberry v. Franciscan Sisters Health Care Corp. (1987), 156 Ill. App. 3d 634, 637, 509 N.E.2d 166; Rodgers v. Consolidated R.R. Corp., 136 Ill. App. 3d at 194-95; In re Estate of Dillman (1955), 8 Ill. App. 2d 239, 242, 131 N.E.2d 634; McGraw v. Oellig (1941), 309 Ill. App. 628, 633, 33 N.E.2d 758.) Determining which of decedent\u2019s relatives are permitted to recover under the Wrongful Death Act, therefore, requires references to the Probate Act (Wilcox, 330 Ill. at 582; Dotson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 157 Ill. App. 3d at 1047); those persons entitled to share in decedent\u2019s intestate estate under the Probate Act qualify as beneficiaries under the Wrongful Death Act.\nPlaintiff challenges the foregoing construction of \u201cnext of kin,\u201d arguing that it has been invalid since 1955. The Wrongful Death Act as originally enacted in 1853 provided in relevant part:\n\u201c[T]he amount recovered in every such action shall be for the exclusive benefit of the widow and next of kin of such deceased person, and shall be distributed to such widow and next of kin in the proportion provided by law in relation to the distribution of personal property left by persons dying intestate.\u201d (1853 Ill. Laws 97 (\u201cAn Act requiring compensation for causing death by wrongful act, neglect or default\u201d).)\nIn 1955, the Wrongful Death Act was amended to read:\n\u201c[T]he amount recovered in every such action shall be for the exclusive benefit of the widow and next of kin of such deceased person *** and in every such action the jury may give such damages as they shall deem a fair and just compensation with reference to the pecuniary injuries resulting from such death, to the wife and next of kin of such deceased person.\n* * *\nThe amount recovered in any such action shall be distributed by the court in which the cause [was] heard or, in the case of an agreed settlement, by the county or probate court, as the case may be, to each of the widow and next of kin of such deceased person in the proportion, as determined by the court, that the percentage of dependency of each such person upon the deceased person bears to the sum of the percentages of dependency of all such persons upon the deceased person.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1955, ch. 70, par. 2.)\nThis provision is still in effect. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 70, par. 2.\nPlaintiff contends that by deleting the phrase \u201cand shall be distributed to such widow and next of kin in the proportion provided by law in relation to the distribution of personal property left by persons dying intestate,\u201d the legislature intended to eliminate the statutory intestate distribution scheme as a means of determining beneficiaries under the Wrongful Death Act. (See Rusher v. Smith (1979), 70 Ill. App. 3d 889, 894, 388 N.E.2d 906.) Plaintiff asserts that the correct interpretation of \u201cnext of kin\u201d is now \u201cpersons nearest of kindred to the decedent.\u201d Two appellate decisions have departed from the traditional interpretation, awarding damages to individuals otherwise ineligible to take under the intestate distribution scheme. They did so, however, without discussion of the issue raised here. See Johnson v. Village of Libertyville (1986), 150 Ill. App. 3d 971, 973-74, 502 N.E.2d 474; Rusher v. Smith, 70 Ill. App. 3d at 894.\nII\nPlaintiff next insists that the Wrongful Death Act creates two categories of takers: the spouse and the next of kin. The argument continues that when a decedent is survived by a spouse and children, the children take as the decedent\u2019s next of kin, to the exclusion of all other relatives. (Forthenberry v. Franciscan Sisters Health Corp. (1987), 156 Ill. App. 3d 634, 509 N.E.2d 166; Rodgers v. Consolidated R.R. Corp. (1985), 136 Ill. App. 3d 191, 482 N.E.2d 1080; Rust v. Holland (1957), 15 Ill. App. 2d 369, 146 N.E.2d 82.) When a decedent is survived by a spouse and parents, but no children, however, the parents take as the decedent\u2019s next of kin. (Johnson v. Village of Libertyville (1986), 150 Ill. App. 3d 971, 502 N.E.2d 474.) But, where, as here, a decedent is survived by a spouse, parents and siblings (or an unmarried decedent is survived by parents and siblings), the parents and siblings are next of kin under the Wrongful Death Act, citing Ballweg v. City of Springfield (1986), 114 Ill. 2d 107, 499 N.E.2d 1373, Bullard v. Barnes (1984), 102 Ill. 2d 505, 468 N.E.2d 1228, Sheahan v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter R.R. Corp. (1986), 146 Ill. App. 3d 116, 496 N.E.2d 1179, Prendergast v. Cox (1984), 128 Ill. App. 3d 84, 470 N.E.2d 34, and relying upon the recent decision in Porter v. Klein Construction Co. (1987), 162 Ill. App. 3d 1. None of the foregoing authorities so hold and none has had the issue before it as is present in the instant case. Further, there was no surviving spouse, as in the present case, involved in Ballweg, Bullard or Cox. As previously noted, Sheahan decided only the issue of whether siblings could claim loss of companionship or loss of society under the Wrongful Death Act.\nIn Porter, the appellate court explicitly held that only the method of distribution, not the expansion of the beneficiary class, was effected by the 1955 amendment to the Wrongful Death Act. (Porter v. Klein Construction Co., 162 Ill. App. 3d at 4; see In re Estate of Keeling (1985), 133 Ill. App. 3d 226, 229, 478 N.E.2d 871; Rust v. Holland (1957), 15 Ill. App. 2d 369, 373, 146 N.E.2d 82.) Before 1955, both the beneficiary class and the proportion of damages awarded were ascertained by reference to the Probate Act. Since 1955, the percentage of a judgment is distributed to each beneficiary based on his or her dependency on the decedent, with \u201cnext of kin\u201d still identified in accordance with the Probate Act. An amendatory act must be construed as continuing in effect the unchanged portions of the act and, more importantly, if previously construed terms in the unamended sections are used in the amendment, it will be concluded that the legislature intended to adopt the prior construction given to those terms. (Hupp v. Gray (1978), 73 Ill. 2d 78, 86, 382 N.E.2d 1211.) By 1955, the definition of \u201cnext of kin\u201d embraced by Wilcox and its progeny was soundly established in Illinois case law. The legislature presumably was aware of Wilcox and its interpretation of the Wrongful Death Act. It must be assumed, therefore, that the legislature intended to let stand the supreme court\u2019s construction of \u201cnext of kin,\u201d as followed by ensuing decisions.\nIn the case sub judice, decedent\u2019s survivors included his wife, his parents and three siblings. Under the Probate Act, parents and siblings take only if the decedent leaves neither a surviving spouse nor decendants (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. llOVc, pars. 2 \u2014 1(a) through (d)), a fact not present in the instant case.\nFor the reasons stated, we answer in the negative the certified question of whether, under the facts of this case, the \u201cparents and siblings of decedent, *** [are] next of kin within the meaning of section 2 of the Wrongful Death Act.\u201d The circuit court did not err in dismissing those portions of plaintiff\u2019s second amended complaint requesting relief for decedent\u2019s parents and siblings, and we affirm.\nAffirmed.\nSTAMOS and BILANDIC, JJ., concur.\nIn 1973, \u201cwidow\u201d and \u201cwife\u201d were amended to read \u201csurviving spouse.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 70, par. 2.\n\u201cCounty or probate\u201d was amended to read \u201ccircuit\u201d in 1965. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, ch. 70, par. 2.\nPlaintiff cites other decisions to support her position: Sheahan v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter R.R. Corp. (1986), 146 Ill. App. 3d 116, 496 N.E.2d 1179; Rodgers v. Consolidated R.R. Corp. (1985), 136 Ill. App. 3d 191, 482 N.E.2d 1080. Sheahan is inapposite; the issue on review was whether siblings are barred under the Act irom any claims for loss of companionship or loss of society. Rodgers supports the Wilcox interpretation of \u201cnext of kin.\u201d",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE HARTMAN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert J. Vollen and Lora E. Minichillo, both of Schwartz & Freeman, and Mychal P. Angelos, of Angelos, Angelos & Anagnos, Ltd., both of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Crooks & Gilligan, Ltd., of Chicago (John P. Prusik, of counsel), for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "KAREN MAGA, Indiv. and as Special Adm\u2019r of the Estate of Donald Maga, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOTOROLA, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFirst District (2nd Division)\nNo. 87\u2014347\nOpinion filed November 17, 1987.\nRobert J. Vollen and Lora E. Minichillo, both of Schwartz & Freeman, and Mychal P. Angelos, of Angelos, Angelos & Anagnos, Ltd., both of Chicago, for appellant.\nCrooks & Gilligan, Ltd., of Chicago (John P. Prusik, of counsel), for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0524-01",
  "first_page_order": 546,
  "last_page_order": 552
}