Illinois Compiled Statutes
740 ILCS 100/4 (2026)
Rights of Plaintiff Unaffected
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(740 ILCS 100/4)
(from Ch. 70, par. 304)
(Text of Section WITH the changes made by P.A. 89-7, which has been held
unconstitutional)
Sec. 4.
Rights of Plaintiff Unaffected.
Except as provided in Section 3.5
of this Act, a plaintiff's right to recover
the full amount of his judgment from any one or more defendants subject
to liability in tort for the same injury to person or property, or for wrongful
death, is not affected by the provisions of this Act.
(Source: P.A. 89-7, eff. 3-9-95.)
(Text of Section WITHOUT the changes made by P.A. 89-7, which has been held
unconstitutional)
Sec. 4.
Rights of Plaintiff Unaffected.
A plaintiff's right to recover
the full amount of his judgment from any one or more defendants subject
to liability in tort for the same injury to person or property, or for wrongful
death, is not affected by the provisions of this Act.
(Source: P.A. 81-601.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2021 · leading case: Best v. Taylor Mach. Works, 689 N.E.2d 1057 (Ill. 1997).
Best v. Taylor Mach. Works, 689 N.E.2d 1057 (Ill. 1997). “Section 2-1117 also directly conflicts with section 4 of the Contribution Act (740 ILCS 100/4 ( West 1996 )). Public Act 89-7 amended section 4 by adding the words "[e]xcept as provided in Section 3.”
Unzicker v. Kraft Food Ingredients Corp., 783 N.E.2d 1024 (Ill. 2002). “" 740 ILCS 100/4 (West 1994). According to plaintiffs, these two sectionssection 4 explicitly and section 3 implicitlyrecognize a plaintiff's right to recover all of his or her damages from any responsible defendant.”
Roberts v. Alexandria Transp., Inc., 2021 IL 126249 (Ill. 2021). “” 740 ILCS 100/4 (West 2018). ¶ 33 Further, prior to 1977, Illinois courts followed the common-law rule prohibiting contribution among joint tortfeasors.”
Lilly v. Marcal Rope & Rigging Inc., 682 N.E.2d 481 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). “) 740 ILCS 100/4 (West 1994). Our fourth and final reason for our conclusion is found in this early legislative statement that the Contribution Act should not affect plaintiffs’ rights to recover the full amount of the damages.”
Adukia v. Finney, 735 N.E.2d 174 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “The City, citing Best , argues that Public Act 89-7 did not abolish joint and several liability, because section 4 of the Contribution Act remained in effect.”
Ponto v. Levan, 2012 IL App (2d) 110355 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “) 740 ILCS 100/4 (West 2008). ¶ 44 “[T]he Contribution Act generally does not come into play if the plaintiff collects from the defendants in accordance with the jury’s assessment of their respective culpabilities.”
Gonzalez v. Evanston Fuel & Material Co., 637 N.E.2d 691 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994). “(740 ILCS 100/2(d) West 1992).) However, the Act does not affect "[a] plaintiffs right to recover the full amount of his judgment from any one or more defendants subject to liability in tort.”
Unzicker v. Kraft Food Ingredients Corp. (Ill. 2002). “” 740 ILCS 100/4 (West 1994). According to plaintiffs, these two sections–section 4 explicitly and section 3 implicitly–recognize a plaintiff’s right to recover all of his or her damages from any responsible defendant.”
Adukia v. Finney (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “The City's argument, that litigants must anticipate statutes being held unconstitutional and file plead ings that would be effective in that eventuality, would clog our court files and interfere with judicial economy. The City, citing Best , argues that Public Act 89-7 did not…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.
|