Hoffman v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation
2017 IL App (1st) 170537
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- On June 8, 2013, Metra ticket agent Richard Davis stepped backward on the Fox Lake platform without looking, bumping into Robert Hoffman, who fell and later was diagnosed with a fractured right hip.
- Davis testified he did not look before stepping back and disputed whether Metra safety Rule 100.9.3 ("look before you step") applied to the platform.
- Hoffman underwent internal fixation on June 9, 2013; subsequent x-rays showed collapse and hardware migration, and his treating surgeon later opined he would likely need hardware removal and hip arthroplasty.
- At trial the parties stipulated to past medical bills of $54,263.70 and to a life expectancy table; the jury awarded $500,000 in total damages (including $70,000 for future medical expenses) but found Hoffman 50% negligent, reducing recoverable damages to $250,000.
- Metra moved for a new trial arguing the trial court erred by admitting Metra’s internal safety rules; alternatively it sought remittitur of the future medical award. The trial court denied the motion; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Metra internal safety rules | Rules are admissible and relevant to show Davis violated a safety rule and thus evidence of negligence | Admission was improper because internal rules for employees do not impose a legal duty to the public and were unduly prejudicial | Admission was within court's discretion; even if erroneous, any error was harmless given the facts and common experience of stepping backward without looking |
| Sufficiency of evidence for future medical expenses / remittitur | Treating surgeon testified that hardware migration and collapse make future arthroplasty required; jury could reasonably award future costs | No evidence of the cost or necessity of future surgery to support the $70,000 award | Trial court did not abuse discretion denying remittitur: evidence supported a reasonable inference of future permanent treatment and expenses; award fell within permissible range |
Key Cases Cited
- Morton v. City of Chicago, 286 Ill. App. 3d 444 (internal-rule violation alone does not establish willful/wanton conduct)
- Hudson v. City of Chicago, 378 Ill. App. 3d 373 (violation of internal rule can be considered with other evidence to show negligence)
- Bulger v. Chicago Transit Authority, 345 Ill. App. 3d 103 (post-accident remedial measures generally inadmissible; reversal only if admission affected outcome)
- Diaz v. Legat Architects, Inc., 397 Ill. App. 3d 13 (trial court abused remittitur when evidence supported reasonable award for future medical expenses)
- Ready v. United/Goedecke Services, Inc., 238 Ill. 2d 582 (harmless-error review for evidentiary rulings)