KAPOULAS v. WILLIAMS INS. AGENCY, INC.

• Decision Date: 10 January 1992
• Docket Number: No. 89 C 3554.,89 C 3554.
• Citation: 777 F. Supp. 688
• Parties: Loren KAPOULAS and Alyssa Kapoulas, Plaintiffs, v. WILLIAMS INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., an Illinois Corporation, and Constance Williams, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

777 F. Supp. 688

Loren KAPOULAS and Alyssa Kapoulas, Plaintiffs, v. WILLIAMS INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., an Illinois Corporation, and Constance Williams, Defendants.

No. 89 C 3554.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D.

November 19, 1991.

As Amended January 10, 1992.

Paul G. Hardiman, Hardiman and Hardiman, P.C., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.

Alfred A. Spitzzeri, Williams & Montgomery, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., for defendants.

AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ZAGEL, District Judge.

On June 27, 1988, in the late morning, Constance Williams was driving east on Old McHenry Road in a car owned by the Williams Insurance Agency. Loren Kapoulas was driving his tractor/trailer west-bound on Old McHenry Road. Both were approaching the T-intersection of their road with Darlington Road. There were no traffic stop lights or signs on Old McHenry. The day was clear and traffic was moderate. Constance Williams started a left turn onto Darlington Road. When she did so Loren Kapoulas was traveling about 40-45 m.p. He was 90 to 100 feet away from the Williams car. He applied his brakes, remained in his lane (leaving the lane would have caused a collision with other vehicles) and struck the Williams car. Williams did not recollect whether she stopped or put on her turn signal or saw Kapoulas' vehicle. Kapoulas was not physically injured (except for a bruised and strained arm and shoulder which healed), and Constance Williams survived, but her two children, who were riding with her, did not. Kapoulas sues for emotional distress resulting not from fear for his own safety, but rather from the death of two children.¹

The defendants argue that, on policy grounds, it "is a macabre result to force a mother to compensate a stranger for the stranger's emotional depression that resulted from the death of the ... mother's two children." The argument has rhetorical appeal (and might work to reduce damages) but it is without real merit. A mother who, through negligence, allows her infant to crawl into the street where the child is slain by an auto bears some moral responsibility for both the death of the child and the suffering of the driver of the auto. A tort may harm its author far more than it harms others — this may be tragedy (as it was in this case) or poetic justice or cruel fate — but not a defense to a law suit.

Illinois law offers more hope for defendants' argument that they cannot be held to pay for Kapoulas' emotional distress. The cases have limited recovery for emotional pain first to those who also suffered physical injury, then to those who also suffered physical impact and finally to bystanders who were within a zone of danger of physical harm. See the leading case of Rickey v. CTA, 98 Ill.2d 546, 75 Ill.Dec. 211, 457 N.E.2d 1 (1983) (rejecting the California decision which permitted recovery for the mere witnessing of injury to another). The emotional distress caused by witnessing injury to another is, without more, not compensable in Illinois. Siemieniec v. Lutheran General Hospital, 117 Ill.2d 230, 111 Ill.Dec. 302, 512 N.E.2d 691 (1987) (a hemophiliac infant); Gillman v. Burlington Northern Railroad, 878 F.2d 1020 (7th Cir.1989) (co-employee's injury); Gihring v. Butcher, 138 Ill.App.3d 976, 93 Ill.Dec. 631, 487 N.E.2d 75 (1985) (spouse's suicide).

Here the result depends on the reading of two cases. Kapoulas cites Corgan v. Muehling, 143 Ill.2d 296, 158 Ill.Dec. 489, 574 N.E.2d 602 (1991). Williams cites Alexander v. DePaepe, 148 Ill.App.3d 831, 102 Ill.Dec. 285, 499 N.E.2d 1065 (1986).

Alexander was a passenger in a car driven by her fiance when it collided with a car driven by De Paepe. She was physically injured in the crash and she suffered physical illness from the emotional distress that resulted from the sight of her fiance suffering fatal injury. The Appellate Court found that Illinois law would not have allowed Alexander's claim before the decision in Rickey v. CTA. The Court said:

"Rickey, rather than creating a new cause of action, merely extended an existing cause of action beyond those bystanders who actually suffered some physical impact to those bystanders who were put at great risk by defendant's negligence ... it did not widen the scope so greatly as to include plaintiffs whose stress arises from watching another's injury or suffering."

Alexander, 148 Ill.App.3d at 834, 102 Ill. Dec. at 287, 499 N.E.2d at 1067.

Corgan sought professional treatment from Muehling, who falsely held himself out as a registered psychologist. Under the guise of therapy, Muehling repeatedly engaged in sexual intercourse with Corgan, which caused her to experience fear, shame, humiliation and guilt. The Supreme Court held that the requirement that a plaintiff be within the zone of physical danger applied only to bystanders and not to direct victims and the Court found that Corgan was a direct victim and could sue for emotional distress. Corgan, 143 Ill.2d at 306-7, 158 Ill.Dec. at 493, 574 N.E.2d at 606.

The facts in Corgan are not the facts here because Corgan's injuries resulted from unlawful physical acts against her person. Her injuries did not arise solely from what she witnessed. The...