{
  "id": 2758643,
  "name": "John Arthur Bloemer, Plaintiff-(Pamela Lynn Bloemer, Plaintiff-Appellant), v. Square D Company et al., Defendants-(Effingham Equity Co-op, Defendant-Appellee.)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bloemer v. Square D Co.",
  "decision_date": "1972-11-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 57179",
  "first_page": "371",
  "last_page": "373",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "8 Ill. App. 3d 371"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "253 N.E.2d 364",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ill.2d 15",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2887789
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "19"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/44/0015-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 N.E.2d 842",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 Ill.2d 407",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5321421
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "412"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/9/0407-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 N.M. 19",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2852320
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/70/0019-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "250 S.W.2d 35",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 Tenn. 105",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Tenn.",
      "case_ids": [
        8529857
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/tenn/194/0105-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "247 Minn. 515",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Minn.",
      "case_ids": [
        1747168
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/minn/247/0515-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "469 S.W.2d 135",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        9045720,
        8509348
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sw2d/469/0135-01",
        "/tenn/225/0334-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 N.E.2d 643",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 W.2d 124",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 F.Supp. 681",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        4239934
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/117/0681-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "242 F.2d 220",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        413563
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/242/0220-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "389 F.2d 212",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2097650
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/389/0212-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "482 F.2d 385",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "253 N.E.2d 373",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ill. 15",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "18"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 380,
    "char_count": 5238,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.772,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7869536017850185e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7144194507092885
    },
    "sha256": "6ce89ec9e3e7b20a500a3c1a761dc3e9aa7825ce91be93218359923fa36bb34e",
    "simhash": "1:f8f326d674c68edf",
    "word_count": 838
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:39:49.359959+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John Arthur Bloemer, Plaintiff\u2014(Pamela Lynn Bloemer, Plaintiff-Appellant), v. Square D Company et al., Defendants\u2014(Effingham Equity Co-op, Defendant-Appellee.)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE ADESKO\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPamela Bloemer, wife of an injured employee of defendant Effingham Equity Co-op, brought an action for damages sustained by her for loss of consortium, but excluding loss of support, allegedly caused by defendant\u2019s negligence. Plaintiff brought the action against Effingham Equity Co-op in Counts VII and VIII of the amended complaint. Plaintiff appeals from the trial court\u2019s granting of defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss said Counts VII and VIII. On appeal the plaintiff contends that the Illinois Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 48, sec. 138.5(a)), does not bar the spouse of an injured employee from bringing the spouse\u2019s own action against the negligent employer for her loss of consortium excluding her loss of support, and she contends that to deprive her of such action violates her rights as granted by the constitutions of the United States and the State of Illinois. The question presented is one of first impression in this State.\nSaid section 138.5(a) of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act provides in pertinent part:\n\u201cNo common law or statutory right to recover damages from the employer * * * for injury or death sustained by any employee while engaged in the line of his duty as such employee, other than the compensation herein provided, is available to any employee who is covered by the provisions of this Act, to any one wholly or partially dependent upon him, the legal representatives of his estate, or any one otherwise entitled to recover damages for such injury.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 48, par. 138.5(a).\nThe Illinois Workmen's Compensation Act further provides:\n\u201cThe compensation herein provided * # \u201d shall be the measure of the responsibility of any employer engaged in any of the enterprises or businesses enumerated in * * * this Act.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 48, par. 138.11.\nSection 138.5(a), in taking away existing rights of action of the employee and extending liabilities of the employer, fixes limits to the amount to be recovered and covers the whole ground of the liabilities of the employer. Duley v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 44 Ill. 15, 18, 253 N.E.2d 373.\nThe injury for which plaintiff seeks recovery resulted from an accidental injury sustained by her husband arising out of and in the course of his employment. Plaintiff is seeking recovery against the employer for her damage which is dependent upon the employee\u2019s compensable injury for which the employer has been paying the compensation provided by law.\nOther courts which have considered similar questions under statutes having limitations similar to ours have decided that the wife of such injured employee is barred by the limitations of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act from maintaining an independent action against the employer arising out of or by reason of the injury to the employee. England v. Dana Corp., 482 F.2d 385; Lunow v. Fairchance Lumber Co., 389 F.2d 212; Smither & Co. v. Coles, 242 F.2d 220; Josewski v. Midland Contractors, Inc., 117 F.Supp. 681; Rosenerans v. Wisconsin Telephone Co., 54 W.2d 124, 194 N.E.2d 643; Nicholas v. Benco Plastics, Inc., (Term.), 469 S.W.2d 135; Hartman v. Cold Spring Granite Co., 247 Minn. 515, 77 N.W.2d 651; Napier v. Martin, 194 Tenn. 105, 250 S.W.2d 35; Roseberry v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 70 N.M. 19, 369 P.2d 403.\nThe Illinois Workmens Compensation Act was intended to provide a complete scheme for recovery from an employer for industrial injuries only and therefore, the trial court was correct in sustaining defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss.\nPlaintiff also contends that said section 138.5(a) unconstitutionally deprived her of her property without due process of law.\n\u201cBy the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, the legislature required the employer to give up certain defenses and required the employee to give up certain recoverable elements of damage of a common-law negligence action; and this we have held many times is a reasonable exercise of the legislature\u2019s police power for the promotion of the general welfare. [Citations.] This court has never considered one to have such a vested right in the common-law rules governing negligence actions as to preclude the legislature from substituting a statutory remedy of this type for the common-law remedy.\u201d Moushon v. National Garages, Inc. 9 Ill.2d 407, 412, 137 N.E.2d 842; Duley v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 44 Ill.2d 15, 19, 253 N.E.2d 364.\nWe find that the reasoning of the court in the Moushon case as to the constitutionality of Section 138.5(a) is determinative of the constitutional issue raised by the plaintiff.\nFor the reasons stated, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nDIERINGER, P. J., and BURMAN, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE ADESKO"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert F. Lisco and Barry L. Kroll, both of Chicago, (Lisco & Field, and Philip L. Howard, of counsel,) for appellant.",
      "J. William Cuncannan and Kenneth A. von Kluck, both of Chicago, and Maurice A. Rickelman, of Effingham, (Heineke, Schrader & Cuncannan, of counsel,) for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John Arthur Bloemer, Plaintiff\u2014(Pamela Lynn Bloemer, Plaintiff-Appellant), v. Square D Company et al., Defendants\u2014(Effingham Equity Co-op, Defendant-Appellee.)\n(No. 57179;\nFirst District \u2014\nNovember 1, 1972.\nRobert F. Lisco and Barry L. Kroll, both of Chicago, (Lisco & Field, and Philip L. Howard, of counsel,) for appellant.\nJ. William Cuncannan and Kenneth A. von Kluck, both of Chicago, and Maurice A. Rickelman, of Effingham, (Heineke, Schrader & Cuncannan, of counsel,) for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0371-01",
  "first_page_order": 393,
  "last_page_order": 395
}