Crim v. Dietrich, 164 N.E.3d 1205

Plaintiffs (parents) sued Dr. Dietrich for medical malpractice on two theories: (1) lack of informed consent to attempt a vaginal birth for a suspected macrosomic infant, and (2) negligent conduct during delivery that caused shoulder dystocia injuries to the child.
At the close of plaintiffs’ case the trial court granted a partial directed verdict for defendant on the informed-consent claim; the remaining negligent-delivery claim proceeded to a jury, which returned verdict for defendant.
Plaintiffs appealed, limiting their challenge to the directed verdict on informed consent; the appellate court (Crim I) reversed that directed verdict and issued a general remand for further proceedings.
On remand, the parties disputed scope: defendant moved to limit retrial to the informed-consent claim, arguing plaintiffs forfeited review of the jury verdict by failing to file a post-trial motion; the trial court certified a Rule 308 question whether Crim I required a de novo trial on all claims.
The appellate court (Crim II) answered yes; Illinois Supreme Court granted review and held that Crim I did not require a de novo trial on claims decided by jury where plaintiffs failed to file the post‑trial motion—remand is limited to the informed‑consent claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the appellate court’s reversal and general remand require a de novo trial on all claims?	The general remand abrogated the whole judgment; a new trial de novo on all claims is required.	The remand can only revive issues properly preserved for review; plaintiffs forfeited the jury‑decided claim by not filing a post‑trial motion, so retrial must be limited.	Held: No. Remand only permitted retrial of the informed‑consent claim; plaintiffs forfeited the right to challenge the jury’s verdict by failing to file the required post‑trial motion.
Does Keen’s exception excuse filing a post‑trial motion after a partial directed verdict?	Keen applies; directed verdict altered the tenor of the trial, so a post‑trial motion would have been futile.	Keen applies only when the entire case is removed from the jury; a partial directed verdict does not excuse the post‑trial motion requirement.	Held: Keen’s limited exception does not apply to partial directed verdicts when the case proceeds to a jury verdict on remaining issues; post‑trial motion was required.
Was the trial court’s certified Rule 308 question proper and reviewable?	(as framed) The question sought guidance on the effect of Crim I’s mandate and was appropriate.	(defendant urged) The question improperly re‑litigated Crim I’s merits.	Held: The certified question presented a pure legal issue and was a proper Rule 308 question; this Court answered it de novo.

Keen v. Davis, 38 Ill.2d 280 (Ill. 1967) (directed‑verdict exception to post‑trial motion requirement limited to cases where judge removed entire case from the jury)
Robbins v. Professional Construction Co., 72 Ill.2d 215 (Ill. 1978) (post‑trial motion required to preserve challenges to jury verdict where jury rendered a general verdict)
Mohn v. Posegate, 184 Ill.2d 540 (Ill. 1998) (distinguishing summary judgment/directed verdict from jury determinations for preservation rules)
Schutzenhofer v. Granite City Steel Co., 93 Ill.2d 208 (Ill. 1982) (reviewing court may grant relief despite forfeiture in appropriate circumstances)
PSL Realty Co. v. Granite Investment Co., 86 Ill.2d 291 (Ill. 1981) (mandate transmits judgment and revests circuit court jurisdiction)
Roggenbuck v. Breuhaus, 330 Ill. 294 (Ill. 1928) (common‑law rule that a general remand after pre‑judgment error entitles parties to trial de novo—court explains limits)
Rozsavolgyi v. City of Aurora, 2017 IL 121048 (Ill. 2017) (scope and limits of Rule 308 certified questions)
Hampton v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chicago, 2016 IL 119861 (Ill. 2016) (example of a proper certified question resolving a pure legal issue about precedent)