Abruzzo v. City of Park Ridge
3 N.E.3d 824
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Abruzzo, independent administrator of Joseph Furio’s estate, sued City of Park Ridge for wrongful death, survival, and family expenses after EMS responders left Joseph at home on the first call and a later team transported him; he died brain dead later that day.
- Emergency responders allegedly failed to assess or transport a nonresponsive patient; expert testimony suggested opiate overdose risk and need for hospital transport.
- Trial followed a remand from the Illinois Supreme Court, which held EMS Act immunity applies and remanded for new trial; prior appellate decisions had held immunity under Tort Immun immunity Act.
- Jury returned a $5,187,500 verdict for plaintiff after trial on remand, with expert testimony on opiate toxidrome and causation.
- Key evidentiary issue concerned reading a defense reply brief as an admission; other issues included special interrogatories, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and damages sufficiency.
- Appellate court affirmed the jury verdict and related rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the defense reply brief constituted an admission | Abruzzo argues the reply admitted facts about the record and paramedics’ conduct. | Park Ridge contends the reply was only a position on immunity, not a factual admission. | Yes; the reply contained an admission of fact beyond mere defense of immunity. |
| Whether the court should have given proximate cause special interrogatories | Abruzzo asserts proximate cause should be tested given opiate exposure and multiple potential causes. | Park Ridge argues sole proximate cause instruction was improper; two alternatives urged. | Interrogatory on sole proximate cause properly refused. |
| Whether the Wilful and Wanton special interrogatory should have been given | Abruzzo contends interrogatory on wilful and wanton conduct tests ultimate issue. | Park Ridge asserts interrogatory necessary to test Wilful/Wanton vs. general verdict. | Interrogatory properly refused due to potential inconsistency with other theories. |
| Whether judgment notwithstanding the verdict was warranted | Abruzzo asserts evidence supports wilful and wanton conduct and no manifest weight issue. | Park Ridge argues no evidence shows utter indifference; verdict should be set aside. | No; evidence supports the jury’s wilful and wanton finding. |
| Whether damages awards should be remitted or a new trial granted on damages | Abruzzo argues damages properly reflect loss of life, society, and pecuniary loss. | Park Ridge seeks remittitur or new trial for excessiveness/improper awards. | Damages affirmed; not shocked to conscience; no remittitur or new trial warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Antonacci v. City of Chicago, 335 Ill. App. 3d 22 (2002) (remand for more evidence on diagnosis/treatment to determine immunity)
- Bargman v. Economics Laboratory, Inc., 181 Ill. App. 3d 1023 (1989) (third-party/alternative pleadings not admissions against pleader)
- Lichon v. Aceto Chemical Co., 182 Ill. App. 3d 672 (1989) (binding judicial admissions in replies on motions to dismiss)
- Prentice v. UDC Advisory Services, Inc., 271 Ill. App. 3d 505 (1995) (judicial admission distinctions in reply pleadings)
- Holton v. Memorial Hospital, 176 Ill. 2d 95 (1997) (sole proximate cause instruction limits; multiple causes context)
- Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co., 398 Ill. App. 3d 222 (2010) (proper form and scope of special interrogatories to test theories of negligence)
- Simmons v. Garces, 198 Ill. 2d 541 (2002) (proper consideration of special interrogatories and jury instructions)
- Estate of Oglesby v. Berg, 408 Ill. App. 3d 655 (2011) (damages awards and sufficiency of evidence for pain and suffering)