2024 IL App (1st) 230134
Ill. App. Ct.2024Background
- Steven Butts, a 30-year-old with prior military service, was taken to Advocate Trinity Hospital with a broken jaw after a fall. He was alert and breathing normally upon arrival.
- ER doctor Michael Soo-Young Joo attempted to intubate Butts in anticipation of transferring him, but encountered difficulties, including blood obscuring his view of the airway and two failed intubation attempts.
- Butts suffered cardiac arrest and significant brain injury, with later medical testimony indicating an endotracheal tube may have been misplaced into his esophagus prior to successful intubation.
- Butts’s mother/guardian sued Dr. Joo and Advocate entities for medical negligence; the jury found for Butts and awarded $45.3 million in damages, plus over $2.8 million in prejudgment interest.
- During jury deliberations, questions arose about whether the jury needed unanimity on which specific act constituted negligence; the trial judge told the jury that unanimity was needed only as to negligence in general, not as to the specific negligent act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury Unanimity on Negligence Acts | Unanimity only required as to ultimate finding of negligence and causation, not on specific negligent acts. | Jury must unanimously agree on at least one specific negligent act causing injury. | Jury need not be unanimous as to which act; only on finding negligence generally. |
| Constitutionality of Prejudgment Interest Statute | Statute is constitutional and does not burden any fundamental right. | Statute is unconstitutional: burdens right to jury trial, is not narrowly tailored, violates due process, special legislation, equal protection, separation of powers, and is retroactive. | Statute is constitutional; does not infringe jury trial right, is rationally related to legitimate aims, does not apply retroactively. |
| Forfeiture of Error (Preservation) | Defendant did not properly preserve the unanimity issue for appeal. | Issue preserved by objecting to court's answers and proposing alternative (refer to instructions). | Majority addresses merits, but concurrence would hold the argument forfeited due to lack of proper objection/proposal at trial. |
| Use of Criminal Law Unanimity Cases | Not applicable; civil and criminal law serve different purposes and standards. | Criminal unanimity cases provide appropriate analogy and should be followed. | Criminal law precedents are distinguishable and not controlling on civil negligence verdict forms. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sinopoli v. Chicago Rys. Co., 316 Ill. 609 (Ill. 1925) (jury verdict must be unanimous, but no need for unanimity on theory of negligence if general verdict)
- Witherell v. Weimer, 118 Ill. 2d 321 (Ill. 1987) (where general verdict given and multiple theories presented, verdict upheld if evidence supports any theory and no special interrogatories requested)
- Studt v. Sherman Health Sys., 2011 IL 108182 (Ill. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard for jury instructions, but de novo for legal accuracy of the instruction)
- Illinois State Toll Highway Authority v. Heritage Standard Bank & Trust Co., 157 Ill. 2d 282 (Ill. 1993) (assessment of interest preserves economic value, not a penalty)
- Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill. 2d 367 (Ill. 1997) (jury’s essential function in tort cases is determination of damages)