Abstract
The zone-of-danger rule permits a plaintiff to recover damages for emotional distress when he can prove that he was either physically injured as a result of the defendant’s negligence or was in such close proximately to the defendant’s conduct (hence, the “danger zone”) that he could have been physically injured. Illinois courts previously held that plaintiffs had no cause of action for emotional distress damages absent allegations and proof of intentional and outrageous conduct, or that the plaintiffs themselves were at high risk to injury during the incident, which resulted in their subsequent physical injury or illness by reason of emotional distress caused by the defendants’ negligence.
In Clark v. Children’s Memorial Hospital, the Illinois Supreme Court declared that the zone-of-danger rule does not apply when plaintiffs can plead a separate tort action, such as wrongful birth, and show emotional distress as an element of the damages sought, rather than as a separate action for damages. The court explained the difference between emotional distress as a free standing tort claim and emotional distress as an element of a separate tort claim. So long as the plaintiff can claim a separate tort in addition to emotional distress, he no longer has to show he was physically injured or in the danger zone at the time of the defendant’s conduct. This interpretation allowed for the plaintiff-parents in Clark to recover emotional distress damages as an element to their wrongful birth claim after their son was born with a genetic disorder. However, the parents were unable to recover damages for the extraordinary expenses of caring for their disabled child after he reached the age of majority. In Illinois, parents have no legal obligation to continue financial support of their children once the child turns eighteen, even if the child is disabled. Denying the parents necessary additional expenses to care for their disabled son during his adult life violates public policy because it gives the parents an incentive to divorce per the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. This Note discusses why the court erred in denying the parents extraordinary expenses to care for their son past age eighteen but correctly awarded the plaintiffs emotional distress damages.
Recommended Citation
Amy Friederich,
Exiting the Danger Zone: Clark v. Children’s Memorial Hospital, 955 N.E.2d 1065 (Ill. 2011),
37
S. Ill. U. L.J.
765
(2013).
Available at:
https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/siulj/vol37/iss3/11