Lexplug logoLexplug

Rickey v. Chicago Transit Authority

Supreme Court of Illinois
98 Ill.2d 546, 457 N.E.2d 1 (1983)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A bystander who is in a zone of physical danger and who reasonably fears for their own safety due to a defendant's negligence can recover for physical illness or injury resulting from the emotional distress of witnessing an injury to another. The bystander does not need to suffer a contemporaneous physical impact to have a cause of action.


Facts:

  • Robert Rickey, eight years old, and his brother Richard, five years old, were descending an escalator owned and operated by the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA).
  • The escalator was designed and manufactured by Otis Elevator and was under a service contract with Midland Elevator (later merged with United States Elevator).
  • At the base of the escalator, part of Richard's clothing became entangled in the mechanism.
  • As a result, Richard was choked, deprived of oxygen, and fell into a comatose state.
  • Robert was present and witnessed the entire incident happen to his brother.
  • Robert himself did not suffer any physical impact or injury from the escalator at the time of the incident.
  • Following the event, Robert sustained severe emotional distress that manifested in physical injuries, including functional, emotional, and psychiatric disorders.

Procedural Posture:

  • Robert Rickey sued the CTA, Midland Elevator, United States Elevator, and Otis Elevator in the circuit court of Cook County (trial court).
  • The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Illinois law did not allow recovery for emotional distress without a contemporaneous physical impact.
  • The trial court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
  • Rickey (plaintiff-appellant) appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court.
  • The appellate court affirmed the dismissal as to defendant Otis Elevator but reversed the dismissal as to the other defendants (appellees), creating a new rule allowing bystander recovery.
  • The CTA and United States Elevator (defendants-appellants) petitioned the Supreme Court of Illinois for leave to appeal, which was granted.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does Illinois law permit a bystander, who did not suffer a contemporaneous physical impact or injury, to recover for emotional distress that later results in physical illness after witnessing a traumatic injury to a close relative caused by a defendant's negligence?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Ward

Yes, a bystander may recover for negligently inflicted emotional distress under the zone-of-physical-danger rule. The long-standing 'impact rule,' which required a contemporaneous physical impact for recovery, is abandoned. The court rejects the impact rule as arbitrary, noting how other courts eroded it by accepting trivial physical contacts as sufficient. However, the court also rejects an overly broad standard that would allow recovery for emotional distress alone, citing concerns about fraudulent claims and limitless liability. Instead, the court adopts the zone-of-physical-danger rule, which is the majority approach in other jurisdictions. This standard strikes a balance by allowing recovery for a plaintiff who was in such proximity to the accident that they were at a high risk of physical impact and reasonably feared for their own safety, provided the emotional distress leads to a subsequent physical injury or illness.



Analysis:

This decision marks a significant departure from over 80 years of Illinois precedent by formally abandoning the 'impact rule' for bystander recovery in negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) cases. By adopting the 'zone of physical danger' rule, the Illinois Supreme Court aligned itself with the majority of American jurisdictions. This created a new standard for NIED claims, requiring plaintiffs to plead and prove they were in immediate physical danger and feared for their own safety, not just that they were related to and witnessed the victim's injury. The ruling provides a more logical framework than the arbitrary impact rule while still setting clear limits on liability to prevent a flood of litigation for purely emotional harm.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Rickey v. Chicago Transit Authority (1983) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Rickey v. Chicago Transit Authority