Doe v. Montesorri School ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                             No.  2--96--0407

    ________________________________________________________________

      

                                     IN THE

      

                           APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

      

                                 SECOND DISTRICT

    _________________________________________________________________

      

    JANE DOE, a Minor, By and       )  Appeal from the Circuit

    Through her Father and Next     )  Court of Lake County.

    Friend, John Doe; JOHN DOE,     )

    Indiv., and MARY DOE, Indiv.,   )

                                   )  No. 94--L--100

        Plaintiffs-Appellants,     )

    v.                              )

                                   )

    MONTESSORI SCHOOL OF LAKE       )

    FOREST; ANNE M. GADON, Indiv.,  )

    and as Agent, Servant, and      )

    Employee of Montessori School   )

    of Lake Forest; KAY GUERIN,     )

    Indiv., and as Agent, Servant,  )

    and Employee of Montessori      )

    School of Lake Forest; LISSA    )

    HEKTOR, Indiv., and as Agent,   )

    Servant, and Employee of        )

    Montessori School of Lake       )

    Forest; KRISTINE THORSEN,       )

    President of the Board of       )

    Directors of Montessori School  )

    of Lake Forest; and BOARD       )

    MEMBERS OF THE MONTESSORI       )

    SCHOOL OF LAKE FOREST,          )

                                   )

        Defendants-Appellees       )

                                   )

    (American Montessori Society,   )

    Inc., Indiv., and By and Through)

    its Actual and/or Apparent      ) Honorable

    Agents, Montessori School of    ) Bernard E. Drew, Jr.  

    Lake Forest, Defendant).        ) Judge, Presiding.

    _________________________________________________________________

      

        JUSTICE HUTCHINSON delivered the opinion of the court:

      

        In January 1994 plaintiffs, Jane Doe and her parents, John Doe

    and Mary Doe, filed a complaint against defendants, Montessori

    School of Lake Forest (Montessori School), Anne Gadon, Kay Guerin,

    Lissa Hektor, Kristine Thorsen, Board Members of the Montessori

    School of Lake Forest (Board Members), and American Montessori

    Society, Inc., resulting from an alleged contact of a sexual nature

    committed against Jane Doe when she was approximately two and one-

    half years of age.  The trial court granted defendants' motion to

    dismiss with prejudice, and plaintiffs timely appealed.  We reverse

    and remand.

        The relevant pleading is the third amended complaint.  In

    April 1995 plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, consisting

    of 13 counts against defendants.  Count I alleged negligence on

    behalf of plaintiff Jane Doe against defendant Montessori School.

    Count II alleged an "intentional tort" on behalf of plaintiff Jane

    Doe against defendant Gadon.  Plaintiffs alleged in this count, in

    relevant part:

             "That on the date and place aforesaid the Defendant, ANNE

        M. GADON, Individually and as agent, servant and employee of

        the MONTESSORI SCHOOL OF LAKE FOREST, was guilty of one or

        more or all of the following extreme and outrageous

        intentional acts, with malice aforethought, and/or with intent

        to harm the minor Plaintiff and/or to fulfill her own sexual

        stimulation and/or gratification, in that she caused contact,

        unwanted by the minor Plaintiff, to be made between her hands

        and/or fingers and the genitals, and other portions of the

        person of the minor Plaintiff and restricting the minor

        Plaintiff's freedom of movement of her person in so doing."

        Counts III, IV, and V alleged negligence on behalf of

    plaintiff Jane Doe against defendants.  Count VI alleged negligence

    on behalf of plaintiffs John Doe and Mary Doe against defendant

    Montessori School for negligent or intentional infliction of

    emotional distress.  Count VII alleged an "intentional tort" on

    behalf of plaintiffs John Doe and Mary Doe against Gadon.  Counts

    VIII, IX, and XI alleged negligence on behalf of plaintiffs John

    Doe and Mary Doe against defendants.  Count X alleged an

    "intentional tort" on behalf of plaintiffs John Doe and Mary Doe

    against defendant Hektor for intentionally failing to report the

    alleged incident between defendant Gadon and plaintiff Jane Doe, as

    well as fraudulent concealment and conspiracy to conceal.  Counts

    XII and XIII added American Montessori Society, Inc., as a new

    defendant, but it is not a party to this appeal.  

        On April 28, 1995, the first in a long and tortured series of

    motions was filed. Over the next several months, plaintiffs'

    complaint was attacked pursuant to section 2--619(a)(9) of the

    Civil Practice Law (735 ILCS 5/2--619(a)(9) (West 1994)), section

    2--615 of the Civil Practice Law (735 ILCS 5/2--615 (West 1994)),

    and Supreme Court Rule 103(b) (134 Ill. 2d R. 103(b)).  Motions for

    sanctions were filed, alleging discovery violations pursuant to

    Supreme Court Rules 215 and 219(c) (Official Reports Advance Sheet

    No. 20 (September 27, 1995), Rs. 215, 219(c), eff. January 1,

    1996).  Furthermore, each set of motions was accompanied by or

    followed by memoranda briefing the issues raised.

        In September 1995 plaintiffs filed their response to

    defendants' motion for sanctions.  Plaintiffs assert in their

    response that defendants had not established a good-faith showing

    for a defense psychological examination of plaintiff Jane Doe.

    Plaintiffs further contend that a psychological examination would

    pose a significant and undue risk of harm to plaintiff Jane Doe.

    Their response also states that plaintiff Jane Doe has no

    "articulable present recollection of *** attending Montessori

    School ***, let alone the incident itself."  They also contend that

    plaintiff Jane Doe should not be subjected to a discovery

    deposition because of her tender age.  Plaintiffs attached an

    affidavit of Daniel Woloszyn, a licensed clinical

    neuropsychologist.  Woloszyn opined that a psychological

    examination of plaintiff Jane Doe would pose a significant risk of

    harm because the examination, "in the absence of any current memory

    of the event, would reasonably trigger emotional trauma and also a

    likelihood of triggering repressed memory syndrome."

        Defendants Hektor, the Montessori School, and Gadon filed

    replies to plaintiffs' response to the motions for sanctions.  In

    her reply memorandum, defendant Gadon further asserts, for the

    first time, that plaintiffs' cause of action had not accrued.

    Applying the discovery rule of the childhood sexual abuse section

    of the Limitations Act (735 ILCS 5/13--202.2 (West 1994)), Gadon

    argues plaintiff Jane Doe is not yet aware that she had been

    injured, and, therefore, the cause of action will accrue only when

    she recovers her memory of the event.  Only then can it be

    determined whether her action was within the limitations period set

    forth.  Thus, Gadon claims, plaintiff Jane Doe has no cause of

    action at this time, but should be allowed to renew her claim

    should she discover she was sexually molested.  

        In October 1995 defendant Guerin filed her reply to

    plaintiffs' response to defendants' motions for sanctions.  Guerin

    argues that plaintiffs' damages are speculative, plaintiff Jane

    Doe's cause of action is not ripe, and plaintiffs' and their

    affiant, Woloszyn, "overlook the fact that it would be beneficial

    rather than harmful, for *** [plaintiff Jane Doe] to recall and

    deal with the emotional trauma that may have been caused if the

    alleged incident occurred."  

        In November 1995 plaintiffs filed their surresponse to

    defendants' combined replies.  Plaintiffs maintain that their cause

    of action was ripe on the day the act allegedly occurred because of

    the principle that the discovery by a child's parent, even absent

    actual cognition or memory by the child, shall be imputed to the

    child and shall constitute the accrual of a cause of action.

    Plaintiffs also argue that the childhood sexual abuse section of

    the Limitations Act (735 ILCS 5/13--202.2 (West 1994)) does not

    prohibit bringing a cause of action contemporaneously with the

    knowledge of an act of abuse.  They also argue that, as a matter of

    law, injury is presumed due to the heinous nature of sexual

    molestation.  Furthermore, plaintiffs claim that John and Mary

    Doe's causes of action exist independently of Jane Doe's claim and

    that the trial court should employ a balancing test to determine

    whether plaintiff Jane Doe should be subjected to a defense

    psychological examination.

        On December 14, 1995, defendant Gadon filed a surreply to

    plaintiffs' surresponse to defendants' combined replies for their

    motions for sanctions.  In her surreply, defendant Gadon argues

    that (1) the cause of action has not accrued for plaintiff Jane

    Doe; (2) injury to plaintiff Jane Doe from the alleged molestation

    cannot be presumed; and (3) should plaintiff Jane Doe's cause of

    action fail, then her parents, John and Mary Doe, have no

    independent cause of action.  On December 18, 1995, defendants

    Guerin, Hektor, Thorsen, Gadon, and the Montessori School filed

    essentially the same joint surreply.

        At a hearing held on January 3, 1996, the trial court granted

    defendant American Montessori Society, Inc., leave to adopt the

    arguments of the other defendants.  Following that, the trial court

    conducted a hearing on a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' third

    amended complaint pursuant to section 2--619 (735 ILCS 5/2--619

    (West 1994)).  Defendants claimed that the suit was barred because

    plaintiff Jane Doe's cause of action had not yet accrued and that

    the plaintiff parents' individual causes of action had similarly

    not accrued on the basis of their claims being derivative of

    plaintiff Jane Doe's claims.  At the conclusion of that hearing,

    the trial court entered certain findings on the record: that

    plaintiff Jane Doe's cause of action was not yet ripe because she

    had not "broken through" her repressed memory; that the act of

    child molestation did not warrant a finding of presumed damages on

    the basis of said damages being speculative; and that plaintiffs

    John Doe's and Mary Doe's independent causes of action for

    intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and

    fraudulent concealment could not be maintained because they were

    derivative of plaintiff Jane Doe's claims.  The trial court also

    requested defendants draft and file a motion to dismiss consistent

    with its findings, which defendants did and filed such motion to

    dismiss on February 13, 1996.

        On March 1, 1996, plaintiffs filed their response to

    defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' third amended complaint,

    incorporating similar arguments made at the January 3, 1996,

    hearing, readopting and realleging arguments made in their previous

    pleadings and responses and surresponses to the various motions to

    dismiss and motions for sanctions.

        On March 4, 1996, the trial court entered an order granting

    defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiffs' third amended complaint

    with prejudice, specifically finding that (1) the discovery rule as

    amended in the childhood sexual abuse section of the Limitations

    Act applies to the present case; (2) plaintiff Jane Doe's cause of

    action had not accrued within the meaning of the childhood sexual

    abuse section of the Limitations Act because she has no present

    knowledge of the sexual assault or of her damages; (3) the Indiana

    "imputation rule" (the parents' knowledge imputed to the child) is

    inapplicable because Indiana has no statute similar to the

    childhood sexual abuse section of the Limitations Act; (4) the act

    of child molestation did not warrant a finding of presumed damages;

    (5) plaintiffs should not be entitled to nominal damages because

    such damages are speculative in nature; and (6) plaintiffs, John

    Doe and Mary Doe, have no independent cause of action for

    intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, or

    fraudulent concealment because their claims derive from plaintiff

    Jane Doe's claims.

        On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred by

    granting defendants' motion to dismiss because (1) plaintiff Jane

    Doe's cause of action has accrued; (2) the act of child molestation

    warrants a finding of presumed nominal damages; and (3) plaintiffs

    John Doe and Mary Doe may maintain an independent cause of action

    for intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy,

    or fraudulent concealment.  

        Before reaching the merits, we wish to address the pleading

    and motion practice that led to this appeal.   A majority of the

    arguments were initiated and addressed in defendants' motions for

    sanctions; plaintiffs' response to defendants' motions for

    sanctions; defendants' reply to plaintiffs' response to defendants'

    motions for sanctions; plaintiffs' surresponse to defendants' reply

    to plaintiffs' response to defendants' motions for sanctions; and

    defendants' surreply to plaintiffs' surresponse to defendants'

    reply to plaintiffs' response to defendants' motions for sanctions.

    In response, we suggest that a more efficient and practical process

    would have been appropriate.   

        The Illinois Supreme Court has the power to make and amend

    rules of pleading, practice, and procedure for the convenient

    administration of justice and otherwise simplifying judicial

    procedure.  735 ILCS 5/1--104(a) (West 1994).  These rules are not

    ends in themselves; they are designed to secure the orderly and

    fair methods of disposing of litigated matters.  Kaufman v.

    Kaufman, 22 Ill. App. 3d 1045, 1052 (1974).  The rules of practice

    are required for the simplification and standardization of court

    procedure, and these rules should be obeyed by lawyers and

    litigants and enforced by the courts.  Alfaro v. Meagher, 27 Ill.

    App. 3d 292, 297 (1975).  Members of the bar and others appearing

    before a tribunal are presumed to be aware of the rules of practice

    and procedure prescribed by the Illinois Supreme Court.  Biggs v.

    Spader, 411 Ill. 42, 44 (1951).  If the structure of our court

    system permitted loose practice, the result would inevitably be

    complete chaos.  Alfaro, 27 Ill. App. 3d at 297.  "Chaos serves no

    social end."  State Tax Comm'n v. Aldrich, 316 U.S. 174, 196, 86 L.

    Ed. 1358, 1378, 62 S. Ct. 1008, 1019 (1942).  

         We note that defendants Thorsen and the Board Members failed

    to attach affidavits in support of their original section 2--619

    motion to dismiss, filed on April 28, 1995.  Similarly, on February

    13, 1996, and pursuant to the trial court's request of January 3,

    1996, defendants together filed their section 2--619 motion to

    dismiss plaintiffs' third amended complaint with prejudice.

    Defendants also failed to support this motion with affidavits.   

        Where the grounds for dismissal do not appear on the face of

    the pleadings, section 2--619(a) mandates that "the motion shall be

    supported by affidavit."  735 ILCS 5/2--619(a) (West 1994); see

    also Waterford Executive Group, Ltd. v. Clark/Bardes, Inc., 261

    Ill. App. 3d 338, 343 (1994).  Defendants Thorsen and the Board

    Members claimed that they serve on the Board of the Montessori

    School without compensation and, as such, are immune from liability

    for negligence.  In their February 13, 1996, section 2--619 motion

    to dismiss, defendants claimed that the suit was barred because

    plaintiff Jane Doe's cause of action had not yet accrued, that

    plaintiff Jane Doe possesses no such knowledge of the alleged

    incident, and that the plaintiff parents' individual causes of

    action had similarly not accrued on the basis of their claims being

    derivative of plaintiff Jane Doe's claims.  Defendants do not

    specify upon which subsection of section 2--619 they are basing

    their motion.  It appears to us that defendants brought this motion

    pursuant to either section 2--619(a)(5) (735 ILCS 5/2--619(a)(5)

    (West 1994)) or section 2--619(a)(9) (735 ILCS 5/2--619(a)(9) (West

    1994)).  Section 2--619(a)(5) authorizes a defendant to file a

    motion for dismissal on the ground that the action was not

    commenced within the time limited by law; section 2--619(a)(9)

    provides for a dismissal when the plaintiffs' claim is barred by an

    affirmative matter defeating the claim.

        The failure to support either a section 2--619(a)(5) motion or

    a section 2--619(a)(9) motion with the requisite affidavit mandates

    reversal.  Denny v. Haas, 197 Ill. App. 3d 427, 430 (1990).  Our

    review of the record enables us to conclude that defendants'

    grounds for dismissal do not appear on the face of the pleadings.

    Accordingly, defendants' failure to support their motion with the

    affidavit required under section 2--619(a)(5) or section 2--

    619(a)(9) mandates reversal under the facts of this case.  Having

    said that, the Civil Practice Law also needs to be construed

    liberally to fulfill its purpose of providing substantial justice

    and resolution on the merits, rather than imposing seemingly

    insurmountable procedural obstacles to litigation.  See 735 ILCS

    5/1--106 (West 1994); Marsh v. Nellessen, 235 Ill. App. 3d 998,

    1002 (1992).    

        Thus, we turn to the nature of appellate review of a trial

    court's dismissal of a complaint pursuant to section 2--619.  The

    purpose of section 2--619 motion is to allow for the disposition of

    questions of law and easily proved fact issues at the outset of the

    case.  See, e.g., Zedella v. Gibson, 165 Ill. 2d 181, 185 (1995);

    M.E.H. v. L.H., 283 Ill. App. 3d 241, 245 (1996).  Unlike a motion

    with respect to the pleadings brought under section 2--615

    (Illinois Graphics Co. v. Nickum, 159 Ill. 2d 469, 484 (1994)

    (section 2--615 motion attacks only the legal sufficiency of the

    complaint and deals exclusively with defects appearing on the face

    of the complaint)), a trial court ruling on a section 2--619 motion

    may consider the "pleadings, depositions, and affidavits" (Zedella,

    165 Ill. 2d at 185).  We have stated:

        "The motion should be granted and the complaint dismissed if,

        after construing the document in the light most favorable to

        the nonmoving party, the court finds that no set of facts can

        be proved which would entitle the plaintiff to recover.

        [Citations.]  When reviewing the propriety of a section 2--619

        dismissal, all well-pleaded facts alleged in the complaint are

        taken as true.  [Citation.]  Conclusions of law or conclusions

        of material fact unsupported by specific factual allegations

        must be disregarded.  [Citation.]  As such, the reviewing

        court is concerned solely with a question of law presented by

        the pleadings."  Nikolic v. Seidenberg, 242 Ill. App. 3d 96,

        98-99 (1993).

        Further, courts have recognized that a section 2--619(a)(9)

    motion to dismiss admits the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's

    cause of action.  Johnson v. Du Page Airport Authority, 268 Ill.

    App. 3d 409, 414 (1994).  Finally, an appellate court conducts an

    independent review of the propriety of dismissing the complaint

    and, therefore, is not required to defer to a trial court's

    reasoning.  Nikolic, 242 Ill. App. 3d at 99.

        The first issue on appeal is whether plaintiff Jane Doe's

    cause of action has accrued.  In plaintiffs' third amended

    complaint, plaintiff Jane Doe is seeking relief under a negligence

    theory and an "intentional tort" theory.  A cause of action based

    on tort accrues only when all elements are present--duty, breach,

    and resulting injury or damage.  West American Insurance Co. v. Sal

    E. Lobianco & Son Co., 69 Ill. 2d 126, 129-30 (1977); Wolf v.

    Bueser, 279 Ill. App. 3d 217, 226-27 (1996).  Without accrual there

    can be no cause of action, and there is no cause of action until

    injury or damage has occurred.  West American Insurance Co., 69

    Ill. 2d at 131; Wolf, 279 Ill. App. 3d at 227.  Generally, a cause

    of action for torts accrues when the plaintiff suffers an injury.

    Hermitage Corp. v. Contractors Adjustment Co., 166 Ill. 2d 72, 77

    (1995); West American Insurance Co., 69 Ill. 2d at 130; M.E.H., 283

    Ill. App. 3d at 250.  

        "Injury" is defined as "[a]ny wrong or damage done to another,

    either in his [or her] person, rights, reputation, or property."

    Black's Law Dictionary 785 (6th ed. 1990); Restatement (Second) of

    Torts §7 (1965).  Two recent opinions, Western States Insurance Co.

    v. Bobo, 268 Ill. App. 3d 513 (1994), and Scudder v. Hanover

    Insurance Co., 201 Ill. App. 3d 921 (1990), have concluded that an

    intent to harm can be inferred as a matter of law when an adult

    engages in unwanted touching and sexual abuse of another,

    especially a minor.  Therefore, we believe it to be a logical

    extension of those holdings to determine that when an adult engages

    in unwanted touching, unlawful restraint, or similar conduct

    concerning a minor, an injury occurs.    

        Further, plaintiffs cannot bring a cause of action until they

    know or reasonably should know of their injuries and also know or

    reasonably should know that the injuries were caused by another's

    wrongful acts.  Moore v. Jackson Park Hospital, 95 Ill. 2d 223, 232

    (1983); Fetzer v. Wood, 211 Ill. App. 3d 70, 79 (1991).  However,

    that does not mean that plaintiffs do not have existing causes of

    action of which they are unaware.  Moore, 95 Ill. 2d at 232;

    Fetzer, 211 Ill. App. 3d at 79.  In addition, plaintiffs must be

    vigilant because a cause of action accrues even though the full

    extent of the injury or the consequences of the injury are unknown

    at the time of the injury.  Golla v. General Motors Corp., 167 Ill.

    2d 353, 364 (1995).  When minor plaintiffs are injured, they cannot

    initiate the legal proceeding, but must appear by a guardian,

    guardian ad litem, or a next friend.  Skaggs v.  Industrial Comm'n,

    371 Ill. 535, 542 (1939).  Alternatively, minors may bring the

    action within two years after they attain the age of 18 years.  735

    ILCS 5/13--211 (West 1994).  

        In the present case, plaintiff Jane Doe, by her father and

    next friend, John Doe, alleges, inter alia, that on or about April

    24, 1992, plaintiff Jane Doe was a student at defendant Montessori

    School; the Montessori School and its agents owed a duty of care to

    plaintiff Jane Doe; defendant Gadon was an agent of the Montessori

    School; defendants breached their duty of care to plaintiff Jane

    Doe when defendant Gadon caused unwanted contact upon plaintiff

    Jane Doe's person and restricted plaintiff Jane Doe's freedom of

    movement.  Plaintiffs conclude that, as a result of the above,

    plaintiff Jane Doe suffered an injury.  

        Because a review of a section 2--619 dismissal directs that

    all well-pleaded facts alleged in the complaint are taken as true,

    we determine that plaintiff Jane Doe has established a cause of

    action.  Therefore, we hold that the trial court erred in

    dismissing plaintiff Jane Doe's negligence counts against

    defendants.  We also hold that the trial court erred in dismissing

    plaintiff Jane Doe's "intentional tort" count against defendant

    Gadon.  Plaintiff, through her next friend, John Doe, has pleaded

    a foundation to prove that defendants owed a duty, breached their

    duty, and, as a result of that breach, an injury to her occurred.

    The nature of the intentional tort, such as a battery, willful or

    wanton conduct, or false imprisonment, must be established by the

    evidence.

        Defendants argue that the childhood sexual abuse section of

    the Limitations Act (735 ILCS 5/13--202.2 (West 1992) (amended by

    Pub. Act 88--127 §5, eff. January 1, 1994)), bars plaintiff Jane

    Doe from initiating an action or recovering until she is actually

    aware of the injury.  Defendants claim that, because plaintiff Jane

    Doe cannot recall the injuring event and has no resulting damages,

    she should wait and bring the action "within two years after she

    discovers (or reasonably should have discovered) that sexual abuse

    occurred and she suffered injuries therefrom."  By doing so, "she

    will still have her 'day in court.' "  

        The childhood sexual abuse section of the Limitations Act

    provides, in pertinent part:

             "An action for damages for personal injury based on

        childhood sexual abuse must be commenced within 2 years of the

        date the person abused discovers or through the use of

        reasonable diligence should discover that the act of childhood

        sexual abuse occurred and that the injury was caused by the

        childhood sexual abuse."  735 ILCS 5/13--202.2(b) (West 1994)

        (as amended by Pub. Act 88--127 §5, eff. January 1, 1994).

        We are not persuaded by defendants' claims.  First and

    foremost, the childhood sexual abuse section of the Limitations Act

    does not create a cause of action.  Instead, it is a statute of

    repose that begins to run when a specific event occurs, no matter

    when the cause of action accrues.  M.E.H., 283 Ill. App. 3d at 246.

    Furthermore, in their third amended complaint, plaintiffs have made

    no statutory claims of childhood sexual abuse.   What plaintiffs

    have alleged, though, is negligence and an intentional tort,

    possibly battery, willful or wanton conduct, or false imprisonment.

    Thus, this statute is inapplicable as to these causes of action.

    The public policy of the State dictates that courts should guard

    carefully the rights of minors and that a minor should not be

    precluded from enforcing her or his rights unless clearly debarred

    from so doing by some statute or constitutional provision.

    Walgreen Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 323 Ill. 194, 197 (1926).  To

    argue that only Jane Doe can bring this lawsuit contravenes the

    public policy of allowing a guardian, guardian ad litem, or a next

    friend to initiate a cause of action on behalf of a minor or a

    person under a legal disability.  See City of Danville v. Clark, 63

    Ill. 2d 408, 411 (1976).  

        Defendants also argue that knowledge of the injuring event

    should not be imputed from the plaintiff parents, John and Mary

    Doe, to plaintiff Jane Doe to determine whether a cause of action

    has accrued.  Defendants urge that the "discovery rule" be applied;

    that is, plaintiff Jane Doe's cause of action should not accrue

    until plaintiff Jane Doe herself knows or should have known of her

    injury and knows or should have known that the injury was

    wrongfully caused, thereby postponing the commencement of the

    limitations period.  The trial court would not apply Indiana's

    "imputation rule" to this case because Indiana has no childhood

    sexual abuse limitations statute.  

        The concept of "imputed knowledge" is not unique to Indiana.

    Indeed, imputed knowledge is practiced in every state of the union

    by our justice system.  It is well settled that if a crime against

    an individual also involves a crime against the public, such as a

    battery, the individual and the general public suffers, and the

    knowledge of the victim and witnesses is the knowledge of the

    State, even though the victim does not represent the State in any

    official capacity.  Additionally, where infants are victims of

    criminal abuse or neglect, knowledge is often imputed to the State

    for purposes of prosecution.  Civil actions for injuries to minors

    may be maintained by a child's guardian, guardian ad litem, or next

    friend.  See Skaggs, 371 Ill. at 542; see generally 755 ILCS 5/11--

    1 et seq. (West 1994).  We thus hold that the trial court erred in

    disallowing the parents' knowledge of the injuring event to be

    imputed to the child for purposes of commencing a cause of action

    against defendants.

        Plaintiffs' second contention on appeal is that the trial

    court erred when it found that the act of child molestation does

    not warrant a finding of presumed damages.  In its written order

    filed on March 4, 1996, the trial court stated that the act of

    child molestation did not warrant a finding of presumed damages and

    that plaintiffs were not entitled to nominal damages because such

    damages were speculative in nature.  

        Article I, section 12, of the Illinois Constitution provides

    that a remedy shall exist for every wrong.  Ill. Const. 1970, art.

    I, §12.  However, the method by which such a remedy should be

    granted is not indicated.  Our method is to compensate the one so

    injured for each aspect of damages which she or he has sustained.

        Recovery is not limited to items of pain, suffering, and

    anguish.  It also embraces intangible losses, including any other

    facets of nonfinancial losses.  See, e.g., Drews v. Gobel Freight

    Lines, Inc., 197 Ill. App. 3d 1049, 1057-58 (1990); Jolley v.

    Consolidated Rail Corp., 167 Ill. App. 3d 1002, 1012 (1988).

    Suffice it to say that the law seeks to compensate for all aspects

    of damage wrongfully inflicted, tangible or intangible, and the

    fairness of compensation for the particular deprivations

    encountered must be determined under the circumstances of each

    suit.  See generally Parnham v. Carl W. Linder Co., 36 Ill. App. 2d

    224 (1962).

        The real issue in the present case is not whether an act of

    child molestation warrants a finding of presumed damages.

    Plaintiffs, in their third amended complaint, have not specifically

    alleged that an act of child molestation occurred.  On that basis,

    we decline to make a determination of whether an act of child

    molestation warrants a finding of presumed damages.  What

    plaintiffs' pleadings do suggest, albeit surreptitiously, is that

    an act of battery, willful or wanton conduct, or false imprisonment

    occurred to a child of tender age.  Thus, the real issue is whether

    plaintiffs' pleadings sufficiently allege damages when viewed in

    conjunction with the depositions and affidavits for the purpose of

    surviving a section 2--619 motion to dismiss.

        We have already determined that plaintiffs have stated a cause

    of action for an injury and that the cause of action for said

    injury has accrued.  We also now determine that, if the alleged

    conduct directed at Jane Doe is proved, damages can be presumed.

    However, the amount of damages is uniquely a question of fact to be

    determined by the trier of fact (Parnham, 36 Ill. App. 2d at 236)

    and not by a dismissal motion.  Because we have determined that

    plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged the existence of an injury and

    damages, the trial court erred in making its findings on damages.

    In the present case, if plaintiffs' allegations are true, nominal

    damages, at a minimum, exist.  Should plaintiffs wish to seek an

    award beyond nominal damages, they may do so, provided they are

    able to prove the existence of the damages.  

        Plaintiffs' final issue on appeal contends that the trial

    court erred when it found that plaintiffs John Doe and Mary Doe

    could not maintain an independent cause of action for intentional

    infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, or fraudulent

    concealment because their claims derive from plaintiff Jane Doe's

    claims against defendants.  For judicial economy, the dynamics of

    the present case necessitate discussion of this issue.

        There are two distinct categories of "derivative liability":

    in the first category is the action in which a plaintiff may

    institute to redress a wrong done to another; in the second

    category is the action which a plaintiff may institute to redress

    a wrong done to herself or himself that is proximately caused by a

    wrong done to another.  See Garfield v. United States, 297 F. Supp.

    891, 900 (W.D. Wis. 1969).  The instant case falls into the second

    category; that is, plaintiffs John and Mary Doe wish to institute

    an action to redress a wrong or wrongs done to them that was

    proximately caused by the wrong done to their child, plaintiff Jane

    Doe.  Plaintiffs John and Mary Doe allege the wrongs of fraudulent

    concealment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and

    civil conspiracy.  Plaintiffs John and Mary Doe have not argued on

    appeal whether their negligence count derives from plaintiff Jane

    Doe's negligence claims against defendants.

        Although parents do not have a primary cause of action against

    a perpetrator for injuries inflicted upon their child, it is

    universally recognized that parents may maintain an action in their

    own right for any impairment of parental rights caused by the

    injuries, particularly for any pecuniary losses suffered as a

    result of the injuries.  59 Am. Jur. 2d Parent & Child §97, at 237

    (1987).  Thus, plaintiffs John and Mary Doe have no independent

    cause of action for an intentional tort of battery, willful or

    wanton conduct, or false imprisonment based upon the alleged

    contact between defendant Gadon and plaintiff Jane Doe.  One who,

    by reason of her or his tortious conduct, is liable to a minor

    child for illness or other bodily harm is subject to liability to

    (a) the parent who is entitled to the child's services for any

    resulting loss of services or ability to render services, and to

    (b) the parent who is under a legal duty to furnish medical

    treatment for any expenses reasonably incurred or likely to be

    incurred for the treatment during the child's minority.  See

    Restatement (Second) of Torts §703 (1977).  

        Although the parent's cause of action is usually viewed as

    merely a part of the child's cause of action, and the rights of the

    parties are frequently merged into one action for the entire

    damage, analytically, the two rights of action are entirely

    separate and distinct.  For example, the parent's cause of action

    may be barred by limitations, though the child's is not.  Thus, the

    parent is not, as is sometimes held, a mere assignee of a part of

    the child's cause of action.  But the parent's right of action,

    although distinct from the child's right of action, is based upon

    and arises out of the negligence that causes the injury to the

    child.  Jones v. Schmidt, 349 Ill. App. 336, 341 (1953).  Thus, in

    most situations, the parent cannot recover unless the child also

    has a good cause of action.  Jones, 349 Ill. App. at 341.  For a

    complete analysis, see Annotation, Sexual Child Abuser's Civil

    Liability to Child's Parent, 54 A.L.R. 4th 93 (1987).

        In the present case, should plaintiff Jane Doe's cause of

    action for negligence ultimately fail, then so too should the

    parent plaintiffs' cause of action for negligence fail.  This is

    consistent with the holding enunciated in Jones.  However, the

    Jones holding does not preclude plaintiffs John and Mary Doe from

    bringing other causes of action against defendants for injuries

    they have suffered that were proximately caused by the primary

    injuring event sustained by their child.  The allegations of

    fraudulent concealment, intentional infliction of emotional

    distress, and civil conspiracy allegedly committed by defendants

    upon plaintiffs John and Mary Doe, occurring after the injury

    sustained by their child, were acts done independently to them.

    However, the causes of action are factually related.  Therefore, we

    determine that plaintiffs John and Mary Doe may maintain

    independent causes of action against defendants on those

    allegations.

        For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court

    of Lake County is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further

    proceedings.

        Reversed and remanded.

        McLAREN and DOYLE, JJ., concur.