Negligence: Illinois vs. Pennsylvania

Illinois follows a traditional common law approach to negligence that requires the plaintiff to prove four elements: duty, breach, causation, and damages. Illinois has adopted a modified comparative negligence standard which allows for recovery as long as the plaintiff's negligence is less than that of the defendant. This is codified in 735 ILCS 5/2-1116, where damages are reduced by the percentage of the plaintiff's fault, establishing a more nuanced balance between parties in tort claims. The Illinois courts emphasize the duty of care owed by the defendant in the context of the relationship between the parties and foreseeability of harm, as illustrated in cases such as Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.

Pennsylvania, on the other hand, adheres to a comparative negligence framework as well but under a different statute, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 7102, allowing plaintiffs to recover damages even if they are found to be more than 50% at fault. This 'modified' standard leads to a more forgiving approach for plaintiffs as they can still recover damages proportionate to the defendant's share of liability. Pennsylvania courts focus heavily on whether the defendant breached a duty of care and whether that breach directly resulted in the plaintiff's injuries. The concept of 'reasonable person' is central to determining breach in negligence cases, evidenced in case precedents such as Althaus v. Cohen.