Griffin v. Prairie Dog Limited Partnership
133 N.E.3d 15
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- On Sept. 13–14, 2014 Michael Griffin was ejected from Mullen’s Bar by security employee Trent Washington and sustained a fractured scaphoid (wrist); Griffin sued Prairie Dog L.P. (Mullen’s) for negligent hiring and training of security staff.
- First jury (2016) found for Griffin but awarded only $46,122 (and reduced for 49% contributory negligence); the court later granted a new trial sua sponte.
- At the second trial (2017) the jury awarded $275,000 (reduced to $233,750 for 15% contributory negligence); defendant appealed, raising multiple evidentiary and instruction-based errors and challenging the grant of the new trial.
- Key contested evidentiary issues: qualification and admissibility of plaintiff’s bar-industry expert (Tomares); references to missing surveillance video; questioning about Washington’s past criminal convictions and impeachment; and several lines of cross-examination probing temperament, safety practices, and alleged racist remarks.
- The court admitted Tomares, allowed testimony about the nonworking surveillance system (but barred claims that the video was intentionally destroyed), permitted impeachment evidence about convictions in context, and instructed the jury on future pain and suffering and loss of normal life based on the objective nature of the fracture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualification/admissibility of plaintiff’s industry expert (Tomares) | Tomares has decades of bar/hospitality experience and can explain hiring/training standards | Tomares is unqualified (not Chicago-based) and opinions speculative | Trial court did not abuse discretion; practical experience was sufficient and bases for opinion go to weight, not admissibility |
| Evidence and argument about missing surveillance video | Griffin may inform jury there should have been video and ask why none was produced | Admission unfairly prejudiced defendant; video not under defendant’s control | Court properly allowed testimony about cameras and loss; equipment was under defendant’s control and issues of motive/credibility were for the jury |
| Use of Washington’s prior convictions and impeachment | Convictions relevant to negligent hiring and for impeachment after perjury discovery | Defendant: convictions barred by Rule 609/time and limine order; prejudicial misuse | Rule 609 inapplicable to non-credibility use; court limited expert use and allowed impeachment when Washington admitted convictions; failure to timely object waived some complaints; no substantial prejudice shown |
| Cross-examination lines (temperament, football, alleged racist remark) | Counsel permissibly explored credibility and temperament relevant to hiring/training/negligence | Questions were prejudicial, irrelevant, and suggested propensity to use force | Court did not abuse discretion; questions had a good-faith basis tied to disputed issues (force used, hiring/supervision) |
| Jury instruction on future pain/suffering and future loss of normal life | Griffin: fracture is objective injury; lay testimony suffices for future damages instruction | Defendant: expert or objective manifestations required; injury mostly healed and plaintiff showed little pain at trial | Instruction proper; bone fracture is a sufficiently objective injury (Ziencina and objective–subjective test) so expert testimony was not required |
| Challenge to grant of new trial (procedural waiver) | Griffin moved for new trial on damages after perceived inadequacy; court granted new trial sua sponte | Defendant: court erred in granting new trial and should reinstate 2016 verdict | Defendant waived challenge by failing to seek interlocutory appeal and by proceeding to second trial; appellate court enforces waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Gordon, 221 Ill. 2d 414 (Ill. 2006) (standard for admission of expert testimony and that practical experience may qualify an expert)
- Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 207 Ill. 2d 167 (Ill. 2003) (abuse-of-discretion standard for trial-court evidentiary rulings)
- Stift v. Lizzadro, 362 Ill. App. 3d 1019 (Ill. App. 2005) (objective–subjective test for when lay testimony suffices for future pain/suffering instructions)
- Maddox v. Rozek, 265 Ill. App. 3d 1007 (Ill. App. 1994) (examples where expert testimony is required for future damages absent an objectively apparent injury)
- Ziencina v. County of Cook, 188 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 1999) (bone fractures and similar objective injuries can support future damages awards without expert testimony)
- Rutledge v. St. Anne’s Hospital, 230 Ill. App. 3d 786 (Ill. App. 1992) (limits on arguing absence of evidence/witness and when such argument misleads the jury)