2018 IL App (1st) 172204
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Plaintiff Lazaro Garcia fell on defendants Laura Goetz and Dawn Briskey’s basement stairs while performing a service call and sued alleging negligent acts/omissions relating to stair condition, handrail, debris, and failure to warn.
- The parties litigated evidentiary motions: defendants moved to bar evidence of their post-accident removal/replacement of the stairs as subsequent remedial measures; plaintiff moved to bar reference to a 2004 home-inspection report.
- Photograph(s) taken by defendants’ insurer shortly after the accident were stipulated to be accurate depictions; both experts relied on photos because the stairs had been replaced before expert inspections.
- Trial centered on competing expert testimony about whether the stairs complied with the Building Code and whether the configuration/handrail/debris created an unreasonable risk.
- At the instruction conference plaintiff sought an ordinary negligence instruction (IPI 20.01); defendants sought premises liability (IPI 120.09), and the court gave only the premises-liability instruction. Plaintiff’s missing-evidence instructions were refused.
- The jury returned a defense verdict; plaintiff appealed arguing instructional error, erroneous exclusion of evidence about stair replacement and missing-evidence instructions, and erroneous admission of limited testimony about the 2004 inspection process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury should have been instructed on ordinary negligence rather than premises liability | Garcia argued complaint sounded in ordinary negligence and he litigated on that basis; giving premises-liability instruction prejudiced him | Defendants argued pleadings and evidence (building-code testimony, condition of stairs, handrail, size) supported premises liability; instruction needed to state law accurately | Court affirmed: premises-liability instruction appropriate given pleadings and evidence; no prejudice shown and best practice (both instructions) was not requested by parties |
| Whether evidence of defendants’ removal/replacement of stairs (and refusal to allow missing-evidence instructions) was admissible (spoliation vs subsequent remedial measure) | Garcia argued stair removal prevented inspection and supported adverse inference/spoliation instruction; timing/intent should be jury question | Defendants argued stair replacement was a subsequent remedial measure and thus inadmissible to prove negligence; removal was part of preplanned remedial remodeling due to water damage | Court affirmed: replacement was a subsequent remedial measure; exclusion was not an abuse of discretion; no showing of serious prejudice; missing-evidence instructions properly refused |
| Whether testimony about 2004 home-inspection report should have been barred | Garcia argued any reference to the old inspection report was confusing, prejudicial, and defendants should not be allowed to testify they were unaware of defects without being cross-examined on the report | Defendants sought to testify they obtained an inspection and were not informed of defects; court limited use of the actual report but allowed testimony about having an inspection | Court affirmed: trial court reasonably limited the report itself while permitting testimony that they had an inspection and were not told of defects; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Heastie v. Roberts, 226 Ill. 2d 515 (Illinois 2007) (litigants entitled to instructions supported by pleadings and evidence; refusal requires showing of prejudice)
- Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co., 231 Ill. 2d 516 (Illinois 2008) (trial court has discretion to determine appropriate jury instructions)
- Herzog v. Lexington Township, 167 Ill. 2d 288 (Illinois 1995) (policy and limits on admissibility of subsequent remedial measures; permissible alternative uses)
- Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 298 Ill. App. 3d 712 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998) (illustrates prejudice when premises-liability instruction imposes notice requirement that alters case outcome)
- People v. Howard, 303 Ill. App. 3d 726 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999) (abuse of discretion standard explained as view is arbitrary/ unreasonable when overturning discretionary rulings)