Reasoning

122 DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE REASONING CH. 9
violations of the rules and to assess them fines in accordance with the SCTA Rules and
Regulations.

The Board has had to meet on five separate occasions to deal with the problematic
residents of Unit 305. Read the summary of the facts for each case and the Board’s
decision, and then synthesize a ruie that covers ail five cases:

Case 1: The residents of Unit 305 played very loud music after 10 pin. on a Tuesday
night. The Board gave them a warning, but did not assess a penalty.

Case 2: Three months later, the residents of Unit 305 again played very loud music
after 10 p.m. on a Thursday night. The Board gave them a second warning, but did not
assess a penalty.

Case 3: Two months after the second warning, the residents of Unit 305 had a very
loud party after midnight on a Saturday night. The Board fined them $100 for the third
violation.

Case 4.: Two months after the loud party, the residents of Unit 305 again played very
loud music after 10 pan. on a Sunday night. The Board fined them $200 for the fourth
vioiation.

Case 5: Two weeks after the Board assessed the $200 violation, the residents of Unit
305 caused a loud disturbance after 10 pm. on a Wednesday night. Upon further
investigation, the Board determined that the visiting grandfather of one of the
residents had sufiered a heart attack, and the residents were trying to save his life.
The Board found that the residents did not violate the SCTA Rules and Regulations,
and they did not assess a fine.

1. Synthesize the rule:

m_*mM__W_
W__mW__mW_

W_mW__W_
2. Answer these questions:
a. When do quiet hours begin on Friday night?
b. What will the penalty be for the residents of Unit 305 if there is a fifth
Violation? I
3. Can you use the role that you synthesized to answer Questions 2a and 210?
Why or why not? If not, What do you think the Board Wiil decide based on the
poiicy values of the SCTA Rules and Regulations?
4. How would you describe the policy values of the SCTA Ruies and Regula-
tions?
EXERCISE 9 B
Read the excerpts from three Illinois cases below. The cases discuss a common law
principie called intra-family tort irnmunity. The page numbers are included to heip

B. INDUCTIVE REASONENG 123
you to discuss the cases with classmates and to help you to understand how the writers
of casebooks heavily edit case excerpts.

After reading each case, write down the rule or rules from that case about
intra-fa.mily tort immunity.

Then, after you have finished reading all three cases, synthesize the-‘ruies about
intra-family tort immunity from all of the cases into one rule section. Remember, just
as in the Brerananis case, rule sections may be several sentences long.

Case 1: Foley v. Foley, 61 Ill. App. 577 (2d Dist. 1895)

[578] Plaintiff in error, a minor, brought suit charging defendant in error, in the
various counts of the declaration, with assauit and battery; with wrongfuliy requiring
plaintifi, as his servant, to use and drive a vicious horse, by which he was kicked and
permanently injured; and with neglect to furnish medical attendance or surgical aid at
the time of such injury.

It was proved at the trial that plaintiff, when a child of four years, was left, after the
death of his father, with the defendant, his uncle, by his mother, who afterward went
to Bloomington, Illinois. She was marriedmto a man named Pemloerton. Plaintiff lived
with defendant about fourteen years . . . At the expiration of that time, defendant
wrote to her to come and get her son . . . She Went to Grundy county where defendant
iived, and took plaintiff home with her. His right arm had been broken and dislocated
some years before and he was crippled in that arm . . . [580] it is doubtiess the law,
that a child cannot maintain an action for damages on account of maltreatment against
a parent, whether the relation is by blood or created by adoption, under the statute,
followed by all the legal consequences and incidents of the natural relation.

The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.

1. This is the Illinois case that introduces the general rule of intra-family tort
immunity.

State the rule here. Don: copy it as a quote, but paraphrase it:

Case 2: Schenk v. Schenk, 100 Ill. App. 2d 199 (4th Dist. 1968)

[200] This is a suit by a father against his seventeen-year-old, unernancipated
daughter for inguries sustained when she negligently ran into him with an automobile
while he was a pedestrian on the streets of Bloomington. Defendants motion to
dismiss was allowed, plaintiff elected to stand on his complaint, and the trial court
entered a judgment in bar of the suit. The trial court’s action was based on the
proposition that absent any allegations of willful and wanton misconduct on the part of

[201] the defendant, no cause of action is stated.

24 DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE nnnsonnvo CI-1,9
[202] The doctrine of parental immunity was court created and may be court
destroyed. The public policy involved is the interest of the State in maintaining
harmony, avoiding strife, and insuring a proper atmosphere of cooperation, discipiine
and understanding in the family. The rule and the reason for it was again expressed in
Mmczynski n McGrath, 34 Ill. 2d 451, 216 N.E.2d 137. Enunciated as it is in those.
instances where it is the child suing a parent, we see no persuasive reason why a like
policy is not equaily involved in a parent’s suit against the chiid for his tortious conduct’.
[266] We therefore conclude that there are no impelling reasons for eroding or
emasculating the family immunity rule for conduct of either parent or child arising out
of the family relationship and directly connected with the family purposes and
objectives in those cases where it may he said that the carelessness, inadvertence, or
negligence is but the product of the hazards incident to inter~family iiving and common
to every family. In such instances the immunity doctrine is neither unjust, unreason-
abie nor Without a sound and solid foundation. To hold otherwise is to inject into the
courts a judiciai supervision over everyday family conduct of parent and child, and
invite endless litigation over What is or is not ordinary negligence in the operation of
a househoid. The assumption of the roie of paterfaniiiias by either the courts or State,
except under most compeliing circumstances, is foreign to our way of life.
The statement of these principles, however, does not preclude a holding that the
cornpiaint in the case at har states a cause of action. As stated in Cooley on Torts, 2d
ed., p. 276: Where the child is injured in his own property or person redress has no
necessary connection with the family relation.’ The facts here charged occurred during
the exercise by both the father and the child of his individual rights on the public
streets and with no direct connection with the family relationship. It seems thus clear
to us that reason and justice require that the immunity rule should not stand as an
insuperable bar to redress for injuries occasioned by the exercise of those rights.

Accordingly, we hoid that the complaint states a cause of action for tortious conduct
having no direct famiiy relationship and states a good cause of action. The judgment
of the triai court is reversed and the cause remanded to that court with directions to
vacate the judgment, deny the motion to dismiss, require the [207] defendant to
answer, and for further proceedings in conformity with the views herein expressed.