Bakes v. St. Alexius Medical Center
955 N.E.2d 78
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Bakes, a heavily medicated, post-surgical patient, attempted to leave St. Alexius against medical advice.
- Security guards Nowikowski and Walstad blocked his exit and allegedly slammed doors on his foot.
- Nurses and security personnel testified to the events; Bakes claimed offensive contact occurred via “sandwiching” and door slams.
- Bakes settled in a wheelchair and was discharged home with his wife after the incident.
- The jury returned a verdict for the hospital and security defendants; Bakes appealed on multiple issues, including the battery burden of proof instruction.
- The appellate court affirming the verdict centered on the battery instruction’s adequacy and the preservation of issues related to contributory negligence, JNOV, and a motion for a new trial under the motion-in-limine framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the battery instruction adequately stated the required intent. | Bakes contends the instruction required intent to harm/offend, not merely to touch. | Defendants argue the instruction properly framed the burden by requiring intent to cause harmful or offensive contact (or equivalent under the circumstances). | The instruction was proper; Illinois law allows multiple formulations of the intent element and supported by the evidence. |
| Whether the contributory negligence instruction was proper. | Bakes argues no contributory negligence by him was present. | Defendants contend there was evidence of Bakes’s conduct that could have contributed to his injuries, justifying the instruction. | The court upheld the contributory negligence instruction, finding some evidence to justify it under the circumstances. |
| Whether the court properly denied judgment notwithstanding the verdict. | Bakes claimed the evidence was uncontradicted that the guards battered him and caused injury. | Defendants argued the evidence was disputed and not conclusively showing battery or negligence. | The denial was affirmed; the record showed conflicting testimony, and the verdict could be sustained on credibility determinations. |
| Whether denial of a new trial for manifest weight was erroneous. | Bakes contends the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Defendants argue the jury could reasonably resolve credibility issues against Bakes. | The court affirmed the denial of a new-trial motion, concluding the verdict was supported by the evidence. |
| Whether the motion-in-limine violation entitles Bakes to a new trial. | Bakes asserts prejudicial inflaming of the jury by display of a progress note. | Defendants claim any prejudice was limited and other admissible evidence existed. | The court denied relief, finding no reversible prejudice from the alleged in limine violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bulger v. Chicago Transit Authority, 345 Ill. App. 3d 103 (2003) (standard for evaluating jury instructions and prejudice)
- Schultz v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter R.R. Corp., 201 Ill. 2d 260 (2002) (role of jury instruction clarity and prejudice)
- Snelson v. Kamm, 204 Ill. 2d 1 (2003) (de novo review of judgments notwithstanding the verdict)
- Maple v. Gustafson, 151 Ill. 2d 445 (1992) (manifest weight of the evidence standard for new trials)
- York v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center, 222 Ill. 2d 147 (2006) (credibility determinations are jury questions)
- In re Estate of Allen, 365 Ill. App. 3d 378 (2006) (medical battery/“helpful intent” context for intent to touch)
- Happel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 316 Ill. App. 3d 621 (2000) (illustrates intent and contact standards in battery cases)
- Welch v. Ro-Mark, Inc., 79 Ill. App. 3d 652 (1979) (traditional battery intent standard)
- Curtis v. Jaskey, 326 Ill. App. 3d 90 (2001) (consent and unauthorized contact considerations in battery)