Court Briefs                                                                 

Jaywalk at your own risk

Roadways are intended for vehicles, not pedestrians. The Illinois Supreme Court said that Illinois courts recognize two exceptions: crosswalks and areas around parked cars. Municipalities must keep those areas in a safe condition for pedestrians. Pedestrians use other areas at their own risk. In this case the plaintiff crossed mid-block because the sidewalk had ended. She stepped in a pothole and fell, but the high court would not rule that the city had a liability.

Statutes require that roads be safe for pedestrians only where their use of roads is both "intended and permitted." Under some circumstances mid-block crossing may be permitted. In Vaughan v City of West Frankfort Justice Mary Ann McMorrow pointed out that "we do not mandate that all pedestrians always cross our public roadways solely within the provided crosswalks."

Make sure you kill the guy

First-degree murder becomes second-degree murder, with a shorter sentence and the possibility of parole, under two mitigating circumstances: sudden provocation or mistaken belief that the killing is lawful (such as in self-defense). That's if the victim dies. If the victim survives, according to the Illinois Supreme Court, the offense is attempted first-degree murder, even if one of the mitigating circumstances was present. The court said that attempted second-degree murder does not exist under Illinois law. As a result, if the victim dies the perpetrator could draw four to 15 years, whereas if the victim lives it's a six-to-30 rap — and no parole.

The law defines attempt as "intent to commit a specific offense." In the consolidated cases People v Lopez, People v Cruz, Justice James L. Nickels pointed out that for attempted second-degree murder to exist this wording would mean an intent to have a sudden provocation or to mistakenly believe that the deed is lawful. This is a manifest absurdity; hence, attempted second-degree murder does not exist in Illinois. The decision clung to "the specific language of the attempt statute" and referred arguments about it to the legislature. It cleared up disparity in opinions among the appellate districts.

Justice Mary Ann McMorrow, joined by Chief Justice Michael A. Bilandic, disagreed with the narrow interpretation and suggested that the 1987 revision of the homicide statute was intended to remove this irrational possibility in sentencing outcomes in favor of dead victims.

Start of statute of limitations

You have to know that you're hurt before you sue for damages. It would seem reasonable for the statute of limitations to kick in at that point, and this principle is built into some laws. Where it is not present it is important to know when the statute of limitations does start to run, what with current efforts at tort reform on both national and state levels. Illinois courts have applied a so-called "discovery rule" case-by-case since 1969. The Illinois Supreme Court decision in May in Hermitage Corporation v Contractors Adjustment Co. provides some needed clarification on calculating the statute of limitations. It begins to run when the injured party becomes aware of the possibility of injury, unless there is a specific bar in the legislation.

Courts still have leeway in applying the principle. For example, it might be inoperative if, after a long period of time, proof would place an unacceptable difficulty on a defendant. The immediate precedent cited by Justice John L. Nickels' majority opinion was a 1994 case involving attorney malpractice. In dissenting, Justice Charles E. Freeman (joined by Chief Justice Michael A. Bilandic) focused on the fact that the present case involves legal malpractice by a non-attorney and, in his opinion, expanded the discovery principle much too far.

Rules changes speed trials

Discovery is a legal process in which lawyers must reveal information to each other before trial and thus avoid springing surprises. The Illinois Supreme Court issued rules changes on June 1 in an attempt to speed up civil cases. Deposition, the oral questioning of opposition witnesses under oath, and interrogatories, the submission of written questions to be answered under oath, have now been limited in scope. Other changes will make their use more efficient. A pre-trial case management conference will clarify all matters and, in some cases, lead to out of court settlement.

36/July 1995/Illinois Issues