[Download] "Hough v. Mooningham" by Illinois Appellate Court ? Fifth District Affirmed As Modified # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

July 09, 2021

eBook details

Title: Hough v. Mooningham
Author : Illinois Appellate Court ? Fifth District Affirmed As Modified
Release Date : January 10, 1986
Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
Pages : * pages
Size : 65 KB

Description

This appeal involves an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff, Jerry Hough, when defendant, Leonard Mooningham, struck him in the head, then on the arm with a shovel. Plaintiff's complaint is in two counts. Count I sounds in negligence. Count II avers similar facts, but alleges wilful and wanton misconduct. Following a bench trial, the circuit court of St. Clair County entered judgment finding neither negligent nor wilful and wanton contributory fault by plaintiff, holding in favor of plaintiff and against defendant on both counts I and II of the complaint, and awarding plaintiff $30,000 in compensatory damages on count I and $30,000 in punitive damages on count II. Defendant appeals from that judgment. We affirm, as modified herein. • 1 A threshold question posed by the circuit court's judgment is its apparent inconsistency. Taken literally, the court's concurrent finding in favor of plaintiff on counts I and II is equivalent to a determination that defendant's conduct was both negligent and wilful and wanton. This cannot be. Under Illinois law, these are distinct causes of action. Wilful and wanton misconduct essentially constitutes a separate tort of aggravated negligence. (Morrow v. L.A. Goldschmidt Associates, Inc. (1984), 126 Ill. App.3d 1089, 1095, 468 N.E.2d 414, 418.) In contrast to an ordinary negligence claim, an action for wilful and wanton misconduct requires a showing that injury was caused intentionally or under circumstances exhibiting a reckless disregard for the safety of others. (Lynch v. Board of Education (1980), 82 Ill.2d 415, 429, 412 N.E.2d 447, 457.) Thus, the Illinois Supreme Court has observed, ""Negligence and willfullness are as unmixable as oil and water. `Willful negligence' is as self-contradictory as `guilt innocence."" Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Hamler (1905), 215 Ill. 525, 540.