JEROME G. MCSHERRY & ASSOCIATES
ILLINOIS CASE LAW REPORTER
Published as a service to our clients, associates, and friends in the defense of Illinois tort and insurance litigation and workers’ compensation
Golf:
Golf is not a contact sport
Zurla v. Hydel, No. 1-96-4362 (1st Dist. June 13, 1997)
The plaintiff was hit on the head by a golf ball struck by his playing partner. The Court found that golf is not a game in which participants are inherently, inevitably, or customarily struck by the ball. Therefore since golf is not a contact sport, a golfer injured by a golf ball need only prove traditional negligence, not willful and wanton conduct, in order to recover damages from the golfer who hit the errant ball.
Obviously this Court never played golf with us.
Medical Malpractice:
A father may sue his daughter's psychotherapist for negligence in the treatment of the daughter.
Doe v. McKay, No. 2-96-0532 (March 17, 1997)
Generally, only the patient has a cause of action against a health care provider for negligence in the provision of health care services. In Doe the Appellate Court considered whether a father could sue his daughter’s psychotherapist for both negligent treatment of the daughter and for intentional interference with the parent-child relationship.
The defendant psychotherapist provided diagnosis, therapy, and psychotherapy to the daughter. The defendant believed that mental problems in adults are often the result of childhood sexual abuse which has been repressed, and that healing can occur when the patient recovers those repressed memories. During the defendant’s treatment of the daughter, the daughter accused the plaintiff, who was present, of sexual abuse. The plaintiff, who denied any sexual abuse, eventually sued the defendant, alleging that she breached a duty of care to the plaintiff himself and that the defendant intentionally interfered with the plaintiff's relationship with his daughter.
The Appellate Court found that the concept of transferred negligence applies to this situation. Society recognizes that a wrong done to one person may invade the protected rights of one who is intimately related to the first person, so that a legal duty is transferred to the second person.
In Doe, the Appellate Court found that the plaintiff had a special relationship with his daughter sufficient to transfer the duty of due care to the plaintiff. Additionally, the defendant therapist had brought the plaintiff into the treatment process. Once the defendant had immersed the plaintiff in the treatment process, the plaintiff was a “quasi-patient” himself. Accordingly, the Appellate Court held that the defendant’s duty to use reasonable care in the treatment of the daughter extended to the plaintiff.