Crim v. Dietrich, 2020 IL 124318

Background

Parents (Kristopher and Teri Crim) sued Dr. Gina Dietrich on behalf of their son Collin for medical malpractice alleging (1) lack of informed consent to vaginal delivery of a macrosomic infant and (2) negligent delivery causing shoulder dystocia and nerve injuries.
At the close of plaintiffs’ case the trial court granted a partial directed verdict for defendant on the informed-consent claim; trial then proceeded and a jury returned verdict for defendant on the remaining negligent-delivery claim.
Plaintiffs appealed only the directed verdict on informed consent; the appellate court (Crim I) reversed and issued a general remand for a new trial.
On remand the parties disputed scope: defendant moved in limine to bar retrial of the negligent-delivery claim, arguing plaintiffs forfeited that challenge by failing to file a post-trial motion under Ill. S. Ct. Rule/735 ILCS 5/2-1202; the trial court certified the question whether Crim I required a de novo trial on all claims.
The appellate court (Crim II) answered yes; this Court granted review and reversed, holding the remand does not compel retrial on the jury-decided negligence claim because plaintiffs forfeited review by not filing a post-trial motion; the case is remanded for a new trial limited to the informed-consent claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a general appellate remand required a de novo trial on all claims	The appellate court’s general reversal/remand abrogated the judgment and entitles plaintiffs to a full new trial on all issues	The appellate reversal addressed only informed consent; plaintiffs forfeited challenge to the jury verdict by not filing a post-trial motion, so retrial must be limited to informed consent	No. The remand does not require a de novo trial on claims already decided by a jury that plaintiffs failed to preserve for appeal.
Whether a partial directed verdict excuses filing a post-trial motion to preserve issues decided later by a jury	A directed verdict on one claim materially altered the remaining trial and made a post-trial motion futile	Keen’s exception (no post-trial motion required after directed verdict) is inapplicable to partial directed verdicts followed by a jury verdict on other issues	Held that Keen is inapplicable here; when jury returns a verdict on remaining claims, a post-trial motion is required to preserve attack on that verdict.
Whether forfeiture under section 2-1202 prevents an appellate court from ordering relief (e.g., a new trial) on an unpreserved jury verdict	Plaintiffs argued the general remand and appellate mandate allow retrial despite no post-trial motion	Defendant argued statutory preservation rules (section 2-1202) bar retrial of jury-decided claim not preserved post-trial	The Court treated section 2-1202 as a preservation/forfeiture rule that barred plaintiffs from obtaining a new trial on the jury-decided negligence claim; appellate relief limited to the directed-verdict issue.

Key Cases Cited

Keen v. Davis, 38 Ill. 2d 280 (1967) (directed-verdict exception to post-trial-motion requirement where entire case removed from jury)
Robbins v. Professional Construction Co., 72 Ill. 2d 215 (1978) (partial post-trial relief does not remove jury’s liability finding; preservation required)
Mohn v. Posegate, 184 Ill. 2d 540 (1998) (analogy between summary judgment and directed verdict for preservation analysis)
Schutzenhofer v. Granite City Steel Co., 93 Ill. 2d 208 (1982) (reviewing court may provide relief despite procedural default in the interest of justice)
Rozsavolgyi v. City of Aurora, 2017 IL 121048 (2017) (standards for proper use of Rule 308 certified questions)
PSL Realty Co. v. Granite Investment Co., 86 Ill. 2d 291 (1981) (mandate effects; appellate mandate returns jurisdiction to circuit court)
People ex rel. Borelli v. Sain, 16 Ill. 2d 321 (1959) (general remand doctrine: general remand may entitle parties to de novo trial when error intervened prior to judgment)