{
  "id": 2431243,
  "name": "SHEILA VAN DE VEIRE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Van De Veire v. Sears, Roebuck & Co",
  "decision_date": "1989-01-13",
  "docket_number": "No. 87-0867",
  "first_page": "794",
  "last_page": "796",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "178 Ill. App. 3d 794"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "529 N.E.2d 209",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 Ill. 2d 61",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3217642
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/124/0061-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "414 N.E.2d 1148",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 Ill. App. 3d 568",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3150143
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/91/0568-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "457 N.E.2d 509",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 Ill. App. 3d 983",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3630064
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/119/0985-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 265,
    "char_count": 3795,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.751,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.519623208007089e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3446886285648314
    },
    "sha256": "ebd83d7a3acc069124c15a35116ed3a54b5b3f8c260d44322e668012b62cc707",
    "simhash": "1:7b92d5d7a775bcf5",
    "word_count": 634
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:15:09.210343+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SHEILA VAN DE VEIRE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE LORENZ\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiffs appeal from the dismissal of their cause of action against defendant for failure to state a cause of action for minor children\u2019s loss of society resulting from the non-fatal injury to their mother. We address the issue of whether Illinois recognizes a minor child\u2019s cause of action for the loss of his parent\u2019s society due to a nonfatal injury. For the following reasons, we affirm.\nPlaintiffs, who are mother, father, and two minor children, filed an eight-count complaint for personal injuries the mother suffered when a shirt she was wearing caught fire. The shirt was sold by defendant. The mother suffered severe bums, scarring, and brain damage as a result of the fire.\nCount YII of the complaint was brought by the father as next friend of the minor children to assert their cause of action for loss of the mother\u2019s society as a result of her non-fatal injuries. On February 24, 1987, count VII was dismissed pursuant to section 2 \u2014 615 of the Code of Civil Procedure for failure to state a cause' of action. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 615.) Plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal.\nOpinion\nThe sole issue on appeal is whether Illinois recognizes a minor child\u2019s cause of action for the loss of a parent\u2019s society due to a non-fatal injury. This court has previously refused to recognize such a cause of action. See Block v. Pielet Brothers Scrap & Metal, Inc. (1983), 119 Ill. App. 3d 983, 457 N.E.2d 509; Koskela v. Martin (1980), 91 Ill. App. 3d 568, 414 N.E.2d 1148.\nMoreover, the Illinois Supreme Court has recently decided that a parent does not have a cause of action for the loss of a minor child\u2019s society due to a non-fatal injury. (Dralle v. Ruder (1988), 124 Ill. 2d 61, 529 N.E.2d 209.) In Dralle, plaintiffs filed a complaint for, among other things, the loss of society of their son who suffered non-fatal injuries at birth due to the mother\u2019s use of a prescription drug. Defendant, the manufacturer of the drug, moved to dismiss, and the trial court found Illinois did not recognize a parent\u2019s cause of action for the loss of his child\u2019s society due to a non-fatal injury. The supreme court agreed and affirmed the trial court\u2019s dismissal of the cause of action. Initially, the supreme court distinguished the plaintiffs\u2019 cause of action from a claim for loss of society in a wrongful death action because when a non-fatal injury is involved, the victim still retains his own cause of action against the tortfeasor. Additionally, the court cited several policy considerations in support of its holding that Illinois does not recognize the cause of action, such as the broadening of tort liability, the possibility of duplicate recovery, and the difficulty in assessing damages.\nIn the present case, minor children, rather than parents as in Dr alie, attempted to state a cause of action for the loss of their parent\u2019s society due to a non-fatal injury. We believe the supreme court\u2019s decision in Dralle is additional support for our holding that Illinois does not recognize a minor child\u2019s cause of action for the loss of his parent\u2019s society. For the foregoing reasons, the trial court\u2019s decision in dismissing count VII of plaintiffs\u2019 complaint is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nMURRAY, P.J., and PINCHAM, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE LORENZ"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jeffrey B. Sussman and Gilbert J. Ross, both of Sussman, Selig & Ross, and David A. Novoselsky & Associates, both of Chicago (David A. Novoselsky and Kathleen M. Krist, of counsel), for appellants.",
      "John W. Bell, of Johnson, Cusack & Bell, Ltd., of Chicago (Thomas H. Fegan, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SHEILA VAN DE VEIRE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 87-0867\nOpinion filed January 13, 1989.\nJeffrey B. Sussman and Gilbert J. Ross, both of Sussman, Selig & Ross, and David A. Novoselsky & Associates, both of Chicago (David A. Novoselsky and Kathleen M. Krist, of counsel), for appellants.\nJohn W. Bell, of Johnson, Cusack & Bell, Ltd., of Chicago (Thomas H. Fegan, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0794-01",
  "first_page_order": 816,
  "last_page_order": 818
}