not reached. However, from the reasoning of the Court, it would
seem that such damages should be allowed.
Such an action as the one at bar is completely separate from
the wrongful death action. "[T]his liability of the surviving
spouse," the Court said, "for such expenses constitutes very real
damages. (speaking of medical and funeral expenses) Since that
liability results from defendant's tortious conduct, it is only
legally sound, and in accordance with basic negligence
principles, that the burden of such damages should fall, not on
the innocent victim, but upon the tort-feasor."
Similarly, the loss of income suffered by the surviving spouse
is a result of defendant's negligence. Although not compelled by
statute, it is every bit as much of an obligation to arrange a
funeral, as it is to pay for it, and losses incurred in such
arrangements should be compensated. Defendant's argument that the
Court limited recovery to those expenses for which the spouse is
liable under the Family Expense Statute, is without weight. The
Court specifically speaks of that statute in an ancillary manner,
as an additional reason why recovery should be permitted, but
does not limit recovery in all cases to the statutory
The Court indicated that the liability of defendant was to be
based on the common law, "responsive to the changing obligations
and relationships within our legal system * * *." (20 Ill.2d p.
310, 170 N.E.2d p. 168). "This interpretation," the Court
continued, "is supported not only by cogent reasoning, but by the
dominant judicial opinion in other jurisdictions, and earlier
decisions of our courts." (20 Ill.2d at p. 310, 170 N.E.2d p.
Although the Court was referring primarily to the recovery of
funeral and medical expenses, there was no strict line drawn. In
Philby v. Northern Pacific R. Co., 46 Wn. 173, 89 P. 468, 9
L.R.A.,N.S., 1193, the Court allowed such recovery for loss of
time. See also Southern Railway Co. v. Covenia, 100 Ga. 46,
29 S.E. 219, 40 L.R.A. 253.
In the absence of a clear limitation by the Illinois Supreme
Court, it is the judgment of this Court that such an action for
recovery of lost income can be maintained.
As for defendant's second allegation, plaintiff responds that
through a typographical error the allegation as to freedom from
contributory negligence was omitted. Plaintiff is therefore given
leave to amend the complaint in this respect.
The Court might point out at this time that the complaint has
failed to allege any federal grounds of jurisdiction. Unless such
grounds are pleaded by amendment, the Court, shall, on its own
motion, dismiss the complaint.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.