Baumrucker v. Express Cab Dispatch, Inc., 2017 IL App (1st) 161278

Background

On October 17, 2011, Luis Leal — a taxi driver who leased a cab from Express Cab — struck pedestrian Margaret Baumrucker in a crosswalk, injuring her left shoulder; injury found permanent by treating orthopedic surgeon.
Baumrucker sued Leal (negligence) and Express Cab (negligent and willful/wanton entrustment and hiring); trial focused on Express Cab’s vetting of Leal and whether that conduct was willful and wanton.
Evidence: Express Cab required a Cicero chauffeur’s license and an Illinois driver’s license but did not perform out‑of‑state driving record checks, road tests, criminal background checks, training, or provide a safety manual; Leal’s application was incomplete and he had prior out‑of‑state convictions (a 2000 DUI in New Mexico and a 2010 speeding conviction in Arizona).
Plaintiff’s expert (Sievers) testified that industry standards require more extensive vetting and that Express Cab’s practices were willful and wanton; court allowed the testimony and admission of Leal’s driving record and a photocopied Cicero chauffeur’s license (authenticity disputed).
Jury returned verdict for Baumrucker: $397,740.81 compensatory (including future medical $50,000) and $500,000 punitive; trial court denied posttrial motions and appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for willful & wanton entrustment	Express Cab recklessly failed to vet Leal (ignored out‑of‑state DUI and speeding), failed own procedures, no training—supports willful and wanton finding	Express Cab met obligations by checking Illinois driver’s license and believed Leal had Cicero chauffeur’s license; Richards/Ledesma require no additional inquiry	Verdict affirmed: facts (incomplete app, limited record check, lack of training, disputed chauffeur’s license) permit jury finding of willful and wanton conduct
Admissibility of Leal’s prior driving record (DUI & speeding)	Driving history is highly relevant to entrustment claim and not offered to impeach (Rule 609 inapplicable)	2000 DUI is stale and unfairly prejudicial; prior record unrelated to slow‑speed accident	Admission proper: record relevant to entrustment; Rule 609 inapplicable because Leal was not a witness
Admission of plaintiff’s expert (Sievers) re: industry vetting standards and ultimate issue	Expert has industry experience and aids jury on standards and risk; could testify that failure to investigate was willful and wanton	Testimony established new legal standard, was speculative, and invaded ultimate issue; defendants contend error and forfeiture	Testimony admissible: Sievers qualified, opinion helpful; expert may address ultimate issue; defendants not deprived of fair trial
Punitive damages instruction and excessiveness of awards	Evidence of reckless disregard supports punitive damages; amount justified by reprehensibility and deterrence	Instruction was improper; punitive award excessive and violates due process	Instruction and $500,000 punitive award upheld: award not against manifest weight, passes Illinois and federal due process review (reprehensibility, ratio, lack of comparable penalties)

Key Cases Cited

Klatt v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 33 Ill. 2d 481 (defining willful and wanton conduct)
Lockett v. Bi‑State Transit Authority, 94 Ill. 2d 66 (entrustment liability when incompetence known or should be known)
Richards v. Checker Taxi Co., 168 Ill. App. 3d 154 (vetting/licensing context in taxi entrustment claims)
Ledesma v. Cannonball, Inc., 182 Ill. App. 3d 718 (similar discussion of licensing and employer investigation)
Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. Co., 37 Ill. 2d 494 (standard for directed verdict/judgment n.o.v.)
Cirrincione v. Johnson, 184 Ill. 2d 109 (punitive damages threshold and jury role)
BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (due process guideposts for punitive damages)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (factors for reprehensibility and punitive damages review)