Blockmon v. McClellan
143 N.E.3d 279
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Fatal rear-end collision on I-80: Walter Blockmon killed when defendant Jakobi McClellan, a Vector sales representative, struck his stopped vehicle while looking at GPS on his phone. McClellan admitted to using phone and not watching the road.
- Plaintiff (special administrator) sued McClellan, Vector Marketing Corp., and Cutco Corp.; jury returned general verdict for plaintiff and $4.7 million against all defendants.
- Two relevant legal theories submitted to the jury: (1) vicarious liability — Vector/Cutco are liable because McClellan was their agent at the time; (2) direct negligence — Vector/Cutco negligently failed to train sales reps regarding cell-phone use/route guidance and incentivized risky conduct.
- Key disputed facts: nature of relationship (agent vs. independent contractor) — evidence showed both indicia of independence (set own schedule, paid own taxes, provided own car/phone) and indicia of control (training, required demonstration methods, price control, sample kits).
- At trial defendants moved for directed verdicts on both theories and sought a special interrogatory on independent-contractor status; motions were denied, and posttrial motions for judgment n.o.v. and new trial were denied. Defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants forfeited appellate challenges under general-verdict rule | Blockmon: defendants failed to withdraw insufficient grounds and thus cannot attack the general verdict | Vector/Cutco: preserved challenges via directed-verdict motions and renewed posttrial, so appellate review permitted | Court: no forfeiture; directed-verdict motions satisfied Code §2-1201(d) preservation; general-verdict rule permits review where defendant challenges all theories |
| Whether evidence supported vicarious liability (agency) | Agency existed — evidence of training, required demonstration method, control over pricing/marketing, and oversight | McClellan was an independent contractor — controlled hours/methods, provided tools, paid own taxes, agreement labeled him independent contractor | Court: substantial factual dispute; reasonable jurors could find agency; denial of judgment n.o.v. and new trial affirmed |
| Whether court erred in refusing a special interrogatory asking if McClellan was an independent contractor | Finding independent-contractor status would control liability | Special interrogatory would not resolve both theories because a "yes" could coexist with direct-negligence theory; form was improper | Court: refusal proper because interrogatory would not test the general verdict across both theories |
| Whether trial errors (instruction modification; admission of testimony re: adhesion/unconscionability; inflammatory closing) require new trial | Errors prejudiced defendants and warranted new trial | Curative instructions and extensive evidence limited prejudice; errors harmless | Court: no abuse of discretion; instructions adequate, testimony harmless, curative instructions given, no substantial prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Witherell v. Weimer, 118 Ill. 2d 321 (1987) (general verdict rule: verdict upheld if any submitted theory is sufficient and no special interrogatories requested)
- McClure v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp., 188 Ill. 2d 102 (1999) (standard for judgment n.o.v.: entry only when evidence so favors movant that no contrary verdict could stand)
- Dillon v. Evanston Hosp., 199 Ill. 2d 483 (2002) (jury instructions and submission of issues; multiple theories and preserving instructional rights)
- Simmons v. Garces, 198 Ill. 2d 541 (2002) (use and form of special interrogatories to test a general verdict)
- York v. Rush-Presbyterian Luke’s Med. Ctr., 222 Ill. 2d 147 (2006) (standard for new trial: verdict against manifest weight of the evidence)