dissenting:
I cannot quarrel with the general principles of statutory construction set forth in the majority opinion. However, that opinion ignores another well-settled principle of law: if the construction placed upon a statute by a court leads to an absurd result, that construction will be avoided.
“If upon examination the general meaning and object of the statute is inconsistent with the literal import of any clause or section, such clause or section must, if possible, be construed according to that purpose. However, to warrant changing the sense to accommodate it to a broader or narrower focus, the intention of the legislature must be clearly manifested.
. Chancellor Kent made a classic observation that: ‘In the exposition of a statute the intention of the lawmaker will prevail over the literal sense of the terms; and its reason and intention will prevail over the strict letter. When the words are not explicit, the intention is to be collected from the context; from the occasion and necessity of the law; from the mischief felt and the remedy in view; and the intention should be taken or presumed according to what is consistent with reason and good discretion.’ ” 2A Sutherland, Statutory Construction sec. 46.05, at 92 (4th ed. 1984).
This principle has been followed in many Illinois cases. A sampling of these follows:
“The meaning attached to a statutory provision is derived from an examination of the language of the statute and its purpose.” (Chastek v. Anderson (1981), 83 Ill. 2d 502, 510, 416 N.E.2d 247, 251.) “The principle often announced is that, if the language employed in a statute admits of two constructions, one of which makes the enactment absurd, if not mischievous, while the other renders it reasonable and wholesome, the construction which leads to the absurd result should be avoided.” (Childers v. Modglin (1954), 2 Ill. App. 2d 292, 299, 119 N.E.2d 519.) “It is a rule of statutory construction that the legislature is presumed not to have intended an absurdity or injustice. [Citations.]” (Halberstadt v. Harris Trust & Savings Bank (1973), 55 Ill. 2d 121, 128, 302 N.E.2d 64.)
“As pointed out in [Franzese v. Trinko (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 136, 361 N.E.2d 585], the judiciary may not replace plain and concise statutory language with its own chimerical ideas concerning the ‘spirit of the law.’ We do not, however, interpret the Franzese case to require strict application of the letter of the law where to do so would yield absurd results, obviously contrary to the intent of the legislature.” (White v. Tucker (1977), 53 Ill. App. 3d 862, 867, 369 N.E.2d 90.) “Also, a statute is not to be construed in a manner which results in absurdity.” Paset v. Old Orchard Bank & Trust Co. (1978), 62 Ill. App. 3d 534, 539, 378 N.E.2d 1264.
I submit that such an absurdity has been reached in this case. The Commission used a more polite term, “anomalous,” but “absurd” comes closer to meeting the case.
The majority argues that the statute is plain on its face. I agree, but I also maintain that ambiguity is of a dual nature: it may be either patent or latent. A patent ambiguity arises out of the words themselves — not the case here. A latent ambiguity arises out of the results of a literal application of the words.
The classic case of latent ambiguity can be found in the story (probably apocryphal) of an early statute in one of the western States, It is said to have stated: “When two trains shall meet at a crossing, each shall stop and neither shall proceed until the other has passed by.” Plain on its face? Yes. Absurd result? Equally yes. The intent of the statute? Obviously to avoid train wrecks, but just as obviously it obtained that result through an absurdity.
So, in the instant case, the intent of the statute is manifest. If the decedent leaves a family, that is, a widow with her children, that family is entitled to benefits until the death of the widow or until the youngest child (excluding those who may be incapacitated) reaches age 18, whichever shall last occur. In that situation the remarriage of the widow is immaterial if it occurs while a child of decedent is under age 18.
On the other hand, if the decedent leaves only a widow, without any of her children living, she is also entitled to benefits, but her remarriage will terminate lifetime benefits and she will be entitled to a two-year, lump-sum payment. She is a free agent, well able to calculate what she will lose by remarriage. In a sense, the two-year payment is analogous to the short-term rehabilitative maintenance often awarded under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act.
A widow’s obligation to support her children does not terminate on her remarriage, while a childless widow would presumably be improving her situation by remarriage. This, it appears to me, was the bright line which the legislature drew in enacting section 7(a) of the Act. I cannot conceive that the legislature intended a windfall to a childless widow by the accident of the existence of children by a prior marriage of the decedent. Such a result can be obtained only by running all subparagraphs of section 7(a) through a meat grinder and ending up with a sort of legal sausage. It recalls Bismarck’s aphorism: if you like law and sausage, you do not want to know too much about how either is made.
The result reached by the Commission and affirmed by the majority is an absurdity and should not be tolerated. If necessary, the legislature should look again at this situation.
I would affirm the trial court.