Opinion

Skinner v. Reed-Prentice Division Package MacHinery Co.

  • 70 Ill. 2d 1
  • 15 Ill. Dec. 829
  • 374 N.E.2d 437
Court
Illinois Supreme Court
Filed
Mar 1, 1978
Status
Published
On the bench
Goldenhersh, Ward, Underwood, Dooley
Cited by
243 cases
Authority
More cited than 9.1%

Modified by Alvis v. Ribar, 85 Ill. 2d 1 (1981)

“There is an important distinction between contribution, which distributes the loss among the tortfeasors by requiring each to pay his proportionate share, and indemnity, which shifts the entire loss from one tort feasor who has been compelled to pay it to the shoulders of another who should bear it instead.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)

How later courts described this case

  • “There is an important distinction between contribution, which distributes the loss among the tortfeasors by requiring each to pay his proportionate share, and indemnity, which shifts the entire loss from one tort feasor who has been compelled to pay it to the shoulders of another who should bear it instead.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)
  • allowing contribution for causes of action arising out of occurrences on or after March 1, 1978
  • adopting the doctrine of contribution among joint tortfeasors
  • adopting contribution among tortfeasors

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Supplemental Opinion on Denial of Rehearing

The employer has filed a petition for rehearing urging, inter alia, that the holding in this case be given only prospective application. The Illinois Defense Counsel, as amicus curiae, pursuant to leave granted, has filed a motion “to invoke doctrine of prospective operation.” Although not in agreement with either the employer or amicus as to the manner in which the “prospective operation” should apply, the manufacturer has also filed suggestions urging “prospective operation.”

We have considered the arguments and have unanimously concluded that there are present here many of the problems and conditions which compelled the prospective application of the decisions in Molitor v. Kaneland Community Unit District No. 302, 18 Ill. 2d 11 , and Renslow v. Mennonite Hospital, 67 Ill. 2d 348 , and that this decision, too, should be prospective in operation. We hold, therefore, that the decisions in this cause, Stevens v. Silver Manufacturing Co. (1977), 70 Ill. 2d 41 , and Robinson v. International Harvester Co. (1977), 70 Ill. 2d 47 , will apply prospectively to causes of action arising out of occurrences on and after March 1, 1978.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.