Comments on Maki v. Frelk

My first reaction to the performance of the Illinois Appellate Court in Maki v. Frelk was to recall the old joke about the man who, when asked if he believed in baptism, replied: Believe in it, hell, I\u27ve seen it done! In any event the decision provides a twin stimulus to the commentator: first, to say something about the limits of common law change, and second, to say something about comparative negligence itself. Despite the spectacular novelty of the court\u27s action, these re-main well-worn topics on which it will not be easy to say anything fresh. I am, however, moved by the occasion and the congenial format of the short comment to talk informally on three or four points. I should perhaps add as a final prefatory observation that, although on various counts I have been uneasy about the daring of the Illinois Appellate Court, I must admit to some feeling of let-down, of some loss of excitement and potentiality now that the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court has brought a return to sanity. At the very least it must be agreed that the Illinois Appellate Court really made news