Donaldson v. Central Illinois Public Service Co.

767 N.E.2d 314 (2002)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Donaldson v. Central Illinois Public Service Co.

Illinois Supreme Court
767 N.E.2d 314 (2002)

Facts

During an approximately two-year period in the town of Taylorville, Illinois, three infants and one teenager were diagnosed with neuroblastoma, a rare form of cancer that was known to occur an average of one time every 29 years within a community the size of Taylorville. All four neuroblastoma patients lived within three miles of a former gas plant that had been owned by Central Illinois Public Service Company (CIPS) (defendant). Families of two of the children (the families) (plaintiffs) brought state-court litigation against CIPS for negligence, nuisance, and other causes of action. The evidentiary record showed that CIPS was aware of the carcinogenic power of coal tar, a byproduct of the coal-gasification process, which CIPS buried under the site in large amounts. The evidence further showed that CIPS had concealed information about the coal tar from the public and from state and federal environmental agencies for decades. Finally, CIPS conducted remediation efforts to remove the contaminated soil from the site. During that time, contractors and nearby residents suddenly became sick with nausea and other ailments. Expert witnesses for the families testified to the high probability that airborne particles of coal tar had caused the sudden instances of neuroblastoma and other sicknesses. CIPS countered that the families had failed to make a showing of both generic and specific causation, along with proof of the patients’ exposure. The jury found that acts and omissions by CIPS during the cleanup process were the proximate cause of the children’s neuroblastoma and that CIPS had breached several duties, including a duty to inform local authorities and residents of the contamination. The jury returned a verdict of $3.2 million for the families, and the court entered judgment against CIPS. The court of appeals affirmed. CIPS appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Fitzgerald, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership