ILCS » Chapter 740 · Act 57
Illinois Compiled Statutes

740 ILCS 57/25 (2026)

Recovery of damages

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(740 ILCS 57/25)
    Sec. 25. Recovery of damages.
    (a) One or more of the following persons may bring an action for damages caused by an individual's use of an illegal drug:
        (1) A parent, legal guardian, child, spouse, or
    
sibling of the individual drug user.
        (2) An individual who was exposed to an illegal drug
    
in utero.
        (3) An employer of the individual drug user.
        (4) A medical facility, insurer, governmental entity,
    
employer, or other entity that funds a drug treatment program or employee assistance program for the individual drug user or that otherwise expended money on behalf of the individual drug user.
        (5) A person injured as a result of the willful,
    
reckless, or negligent actions of an individual drug user.
    (b) A person entitled to bring an action under this Section may seek damages from one or more of the following:
        (1) A person who knowingly distributed, or knowingly
    
participated in the chain of distribution of, an illegal drug that was actually used by the individual drug user.
        (2) A person who knowingly participated in the
    
illegal drug market if:
            (A) the place of illegal drug activity by the
        
individual drug user is within the illegal drug market target community of the defendant;
            (B) the defendant's participation in the illegal
        
drug market was connected with the same type of illegal drug used by the individual drug user; and
            (C) the defendant participated in the illegal
        
drug market at any time during the individual drug user's period of illegal drug use.
    (c) A person entitled to bring an action under this Section may recover all of the following damages:
        (1) economic damages, including, but not limited to,
    
the cost of treatment and rehabilitation, medical expenses, loss of economic or educational potential, loss of productivity, absenteeism, support expenses, accidents or injury, and any other pecuniary loss proximately caused by the illegal drug use;
        (2) non-economic damages, including, but not limited
    
to, physical and emotional pain, suffering, physical impairment, emotional distress, mental anguish, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment, loss of companionship, services, and consortium, and other nonpecuniary losses proximately caused by an individual's use of an illegal drug;
        (3) exemplary damages;
        (4) reasonable attorneys' fees;
        (5) costs of suit, including, but not limited to,
    
reasonable expenses for expert testimony.
(Source: P.A. 89-293, eff. 1-1-96.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2019–2023 · leading case: Wingert v. Hradisky, 2019 IL 123201.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wingert v. Hradisky, 2019 IL 123201. · cites it 4× “” 740 ILCS 57/25(b)(1) (West 2016). ¶ 41 Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that plaintiff failed to present any evidence that could support a finding that Jatczak knowingly provided or distributed the illegal drugs from which Neuman fatally overdosed and,…”
Wingert v. Hradisky, 2019 IL 123201, 131 N.E.3d 535. · cites it 5× “” 740 ILCS 57/25(b)(1) (West 2016). But under the trial court’s reading of section 25(b)(1), a plaintiff would be required to establish not only that proposition, but in cases where the drug user died from a drug overdose, the plaintiff would also be required to establish that…”
Masi v. Harrington, No. 1:23-cv-02132 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 6, 2023). “” 740 ILCS 57/25(a)(1), (b)(1). The Act defines an “individual 1 Harrington’s motion to dismiss does not challenge the sufficiency of allegations regarding knowing distribution so that Court does not address that element.”
740 ILCS 57/25(a)(1): 1 case
Masi v. Harrington, No. 1:23-cv-02132 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 6, 2023). “” 740 ILCS 57/25(a)(1), (b)(1). The Act defines an “individual 1 Harrington’s motion to dismiss does not challenge the sufficiency of allegations regarding knowing distribution so that Court does not address that element.”
740 ILCS 57/25(b)(1): 2 cases
Wingert v. Hradisky, 2019 IL 123201. “” 740 ILCS 57/25(b)(1) (West 2016). ¶ 41 Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that plaintiff failed to present any evidence that could support a finding that Jatczak knowingly provided or distributed the illegal drugs from which Neuman fatally overdosed and,…”
Wingert v. Hradisky, 2019 IL 123201, 131 N.E.3d 535. “” 740 ILCS 57/25(b)(1) (West 2016). But under the trial court’s reading of section 25(b)(1), a plaintiff would be required to establish not only that proposition, but in cases where the drug user died from a drug overdose, the plaintiff would also be required to establish that…”
740 ILCS 57/25(b)(2): 2 cases
Wingert v. Hradisky, 2019 IL 123201. “” 740 ILCS 57/25(b)(1) (West 2016). ¶ 41 Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that plaintiff failed to present any evidence that could support a finding that Jatczak knowingly provided or distributed the illegal drugs from which Neuman fatally overdosed and,…”
Wingert v. Hradisky, 2019 IL 123201, 131 N.E.3d 535. “” 740 ILCS 57/25(b)(1) (West 2016). But under the trial court’s reading of section 25(b)(1), a plaintiff would be required to establish not only that proposition, but in cases where the drug user died from a drug overdose, the plaintiff would also be required to establish that…”
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.