Goranowski v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation
991 N.E.2d 837
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiff Clarence Goranowski injured installing a door solo on a Metra train car under FELA (45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq.).
- Plaintiff alleged Metra failed to provide a reasonably safe work environment, failed to provide sufficient manpower to reinstall the lavatory door, and failed to act on his requests for assistance.
- Jury awarded $545,000 to plaintiff, later reduced to $272,500 after a 50% fault finding.
- Metra tendered a special Interrogatory testing Metra's ordinary-care duty; trial court refused; jury returned a general verdict for plaintiff.
- The issue on appeal concerns the propriety of the trial court’s refusal to submit the proposed special interrogatory under 735 ILCS 5/2-1108.
- Appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling and the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Metra's special interrogatory properly test breach of duty under FELA? | Goranowski argues the interrogatory tests breach. | Metra argues the interrogatory tests whether Metra fulfilled its duty. | No; interrogatory would not properly test breach and could be inconsistent with the general verdict. |
| Is the proposed interrogatory controlling where it might be consistent with the general verdict? | Interrogatory would help test the verdict against the duty asserted. | Interrogatory testing only one aspect cannot control the verdict. | Not absolutely irreconcilable; therefore not controlling under 2-1108. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmons v. Garces, 198 Ill. 2d 541 (2002) (special-interrogatory testing principles; inconsistency controls jury verdict)
- Blue v. Environmental Engineering, Inc., 215 Ill. 2d 78 (2005) (presumption in favor of general verdict when inconsistency is not clear)
- Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422 (2006) (duty as a question of law for the court)