2011 IL App (1st) 103085
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Roberto Garcia, diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and other physical ailments, was placed in Seneca Nursing Home (Lee Manor) in 2003–2004.
- He was housed on the fifth floor, the secured unit for mentally ill patients, with restricted windows and controlled elevators.
- Staff observed Roberto exploring the room window; on Nov. 2–3, 2003, attempts to climb the window were noted but not acted upon or incorporated into a care plan.
- A nurse discovered on April 21, 2004 that Roberto's window was open and the screen pushed out; he fell five stories to his death, ruled a suicide by the medical examiner.
- Plaintiff Philemon Garcia, administrator of Roberto’s estate, sued the nursing home for wrongful death and survival; after trial, the jury found negligence and awarded $1 million, but answered the special interrogatory (foreseeability) in the negative.
- The trial court vacated the general verdict and entered judgment for defendant based on the special interrogatory; plaintiff appealed, arguing issues about reconciliation of verdicts and the necessity of a posttrial motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the judgment for defendant is proper given the special interrogatory answer. | Garcia argues the general verdict is not irreconcilable with the interrogatory. | Seneca contends the interrogatory foreclosed liability. | Irreconcilable; defendant’s judgment affirmed. |
| Whether a posttrial motion was required to preserve error in this procedural posture. | Posttrial motion not required; Keen line of cases not controlling. | Posttrial motion required to preserve issues when jury renders special finding. | Posttrial motion required; forfeiture applies; merits reviewed for guidance. |
| Whether the special interrogatory was in proper form and properly submitted. | Interrogatory may be narrow or confusing; theory not fully covered. | Interrogatory properly framed to cover foreseeability of suicide or self-destructive act. | Interrogatory was in proper form and properly submitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hooper v. County of Cook, 366 Ill.App.3d 1 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2006) (foreseeability of self-destructive acts covered; neg answer dispositive when applicable)
- Simmons v. Garces, 198 Ill.2d 541 (2002) (special interrogatories control when irreconcilable with general verdict)
- Keen v. Davis, 38 Ill.2d 280 (1967) (posttrial motion not always required after directed verdict (distinguishable))
- Mohn v. Posegate, 184 Ill.2d 540 (1998) (postjudgment review context; distinction from Keen)
- Chand v. Schlimme, 138 Ill.2d 469 (1990) (jurisdiction/appeal timing; distinguishable posture)
- Robbins v. Professional Construction Co., 72 Ill.2d 215 (1978) (directed verdict vs. partial reconsideration; Keen narrow applicability)
- Winger v. Franciscan Medical Center, 299 Ill.App.3d 364 (Ill. App. 1998) (duty to prevent self-harm; self-destructive standard)