# Yuretich v. Sole

> Appellate Court of Illinois · March 10, 1994 · 259 Ill. App. 3d 311

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9704750

## Case

- **Full name:** CHARLOTTE S. YURETICH, as Special Adm’r of the Estate of Peter Yuretich, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THOMAS v. SOLE Et Al., Defendants (The Village of Dwight Et Al., Defendants-Appellees)
- **Court:** Appellate Court of Illinois
- **Decided:** March 10, 1994
- **Citations:** 259 Ill. App. 3d 311; 197 Ill. Dec. 545; 631 N.E.2d 767
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Green
- **Judges:** Cook, Green
- **Cited by:** 35 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9704750

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding error in the trial court’s refusal to grant the plaintiff’s motion for discovery prior to ruling on a motion to dismiss

## Opinion text

JUSTICE GREEN, specially concurring:
I agree with the majority that the various counts in issue state a cause of action for wilful and wanton misconduct because of the allegations that the EMTs stopped treatment too soon. The allegations in that respect are very detailed. I disagree with any contention of the majority that allegations that the EMTs administered CPR in violation of applicable standards while the decedent was not in a horizontal position were sufficient to state a cause of action for wilful and wanton misconduct. However, as the question of striking portions of the various counts are not before us, I concur in the decision to reverse and remand.
In Adkins, in holding the complaint did not properly plead wilful and wanton conduct, the court stated that "[f\act pleading, in contrast to notice pleading, is required in this State.” (Emphasis added.) (Adkins, 129 Ill. 2d at 518, 544 N.E.2d at 743.) That opinion noted that the first count of that complaint failed to "sufficiently allege facts showing that any [person for which that defendant was responsible acted] *** without adequate cause or with utter indifference to his rights or in conscious disregard of them.” (Emphasis added.) Adkins, 129 Ill. 2d at 518, 544 N.E.2d at 743.
Here, the failure of the EMTs to place the decedent in a horizontal position before administering CPR could be wilful and wanton only if that could reasonably have been done. Absent an allegation of that fact, the complaint here also failed to "sufficiently allege facts showing that” any EMT personnel here acted wilfully and wantonly in regard to the CPR.
Curiously, plaintiff did allege in paragraph 53 of count III of the amended complaint that the decedent could have been extracted from the vehicle before he was declared dead and emergency care ceased, but no such allegation was made as to what could have been done when CPR was administered.
The general language quoted by the majority from Meerbrey and Burdinie was stated in opinions where the court found the allegations failed to set forth causes of action. Justice Ward was the author of both Meerbrey and Adkins. I do not interpret that language to negate the necessity of pleading ultimate facts showing a cause of action.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9704750. Public record. Not legal advice.