Legislative Year in Review

By Brad Balke

This year, the Spring Legislative Session was markedly shorter than usual (ending in early May instead of early June) because it is an election year and many of legislators were anxious to get back to their districts to campaign. Even with the shortened session, legislators proposed many bills of interest to torts lawyers-some of which passed, and some that did not.

Last session, the Illinois Civil Justice League (a tort-reform organization) and ISMIE Mutual (Illinois’ largest medical-malpractice insurer) scored a major victory by convincing the Legislature to pass caps ($500k v. a physician and $1M v. a hospital) for non-economic damages in medical malpractice actions. Perhaps emboldened by their successes, ISMIE and the Civil Justice League proposed a package of bills (listed as House Bills 4979 through 4984) that would fundamentally change many of the rules of torts law, such as venue, joint and several liability, and class-action certification. This group of bills did not pass since, among other reasons, many of the Democrats from Southern Illinois who supported the medical malpractice caps did not support the broader tort reform package.

Some of the more interesting bills that did pass are listed below. These bills have yet to become law since the Governor has 60 days from the date he receives them to either sign, veto, or amendatorily veto them. To check on any of the specific bills listed below to see what action the Governor has taken on them, simply go to the Illinois General Assembly’s web site at www.ilga.gov and enter the House of Senate Bill number to see the complete legislative history.

One for the Road

Senate Bill 946 (Sen. Cullerton, D-Chicago; Rep. Fritchey, D-Chicago.) This bill addresses the predicament that many fine wine connoisseurs find themselves in when they are leaving a restaurant, but have yet to finish a bottle of wine. In the past, the restaurant patron was forced to either leave the rest of the bottle, drink it, or take it home, but risk being pulled over and charged with having an open container of alcohol in the car. Well, no more. This bill lets a restaurant patron leave with one partially-consumed bottle of wine, as long as the patron has purchased a meal and drank a portion of the bottle of wine on the restaurant premises. The bottle must then be sealed by restaurant personnel and placed in a transparent, tamper-proof bag. Also, the restaurant personnel must provide a dated receipt for the bottle of wine. If the patron has satisfied these conditions, the bottle is not considered to be an unsealed container.

Put some teeth in it….

House Bill 4238 (Rep. Boland, D-Moline; Sen. Harmon, D-Oak Park) puts a little more bite into those laws regulating dogs in three ways. It: 1) Repeals the current $50 maximum fine that may be imposed by a county for allowing a dog to run at large; 2) Increases several of the criminal penalties for a vicious dog attack; and 3) Expands civil liability to include attempted attacks by dogs that nonetheless proximately cause damage.

License to Drive

House Bill 4768 (Rep D’Amico, D-Chicago, Sen. Cullerton, D-Chicago) requires drivers under 18 seeking a graduated driver’s license to have 50 hours of behind-the-wheel training instead of 25 hours. Of these 50, at least 10 hours of training must be at night.

Good deeds go unpunished….

The legislature amended the Good Samaritan Act twice, first to include Emergency Medical Technicians and “first responders” (Senate Bill 2968, Sen. Cronin, R-Lombard; and Rep. Pihos, R-Glen Ellyn) and second to include first-aid providers (Senate Bill 2303, Sen. Burzynski, R-Sycamore, and Rep. Myers R-Macomb.) A “first-aid provider” is defined as anyone who is currently certified in first-aid by the American Red Cross or the American Heart Association. This bill exempts health care facilities or practitioners providing services in a hospital or other health-care facility.

Those bills that did not pass included the “tort reform” package of bills (House Bills 4979 through House Bill 4984) which was supported by the Illinois and United States Chambers of Commerce and opposed by the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association. As alluded to above, the bills proposed major changes to almost every area of Torts law, which may be why only House Bill 4979 (Rep. Cross, R-Plainfield) made it to a committee hearing vote. House Bill 4979 sought broad changes to venue rules; currently, venue is proper wherever any defendant resides or where the accident or incident occurred. Under HB4979 venue would be proper:

1) In the county of residence of all defendants,

2) In the county of residence of all plaintiffs,

3) In the county of the “most significant” event or transaction,

Moreover, if all plaintiffs do not reside in the same county, or all defendants do not reside in the same county, venue is proper in the county where the “most significant event or omission” took place. House Bill 4979 did not define what would constitute the most significant event or omission, but rather, left this to be decided by judges on a case-by-case basis. The bill also provided for rules on transferring the actions to another state when there is no proper venue in any county in Illinois. Finally, the bill stated that corporations could not be sued anywhere they are doing business, but only in the county of its “principal place of business.” So, for example, State Farm could not be sued anywhere in the State of Illinois, but rather, only in McLean County-where its corporate headquarters lies. This bill was defeated in the Judiciary I-Civil Law Committee by a 6 to 8 vote.

Another bill that did not pass, but is of interest is Senate Bill 1911 (Sen. Haine, D-Alton, Rep. Hoffman, D-Collinsville.) This bill sought to clarify the Arthur v. Catour decision by codifying the collateral source rule and by allowing medical bills to be presumed reasonable. The bill also allowed for rebuttal testimony on the reasonableness of the medical bills. Although this bill was guided through the Senate by the Illinois Trial Lawyers (passing by a 57-0 vote,) it ultimately stalled in the House. Negotiations between many different interested parties are ongoing, however, and this is a bill we may see again.

Lastly, speaking of bills we’ve seen before, Rep. Elaine Nekritz again tried to pass a bill that would consider bicyclists as “permissive users” of Illinois roads (House Bill 2390, Rep. Nekritz, D-Des Plaines.) This bill has failed multiple times over the years, each time by a very narrow margin; this session it squeaked by the House (60 yeas to 55 nays,) but was not brought up for a vote in the Senate. Even so, Rep. Nekritz deserves credit for continuing to modify the bill in hopes of securing its eventual passage when other legislators probably would have given up long ago.

Many thanks to those who provided me with information and guidance in writing this article, including in no particular order: Mr. James Covington of the Illinois State Bar Association and Mr. Kraig Lounsberry of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association. Thank you again, gentlemen.