Lakin v. Casey's Retail Co.
107 N.E.3d 904
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- On Dec. 27, 2013, James Lakin slipped and fell in a Casey’s store, injuring his right shoulder; he sued Casey’s and two employees and obtained a $550,000 jury verdict against Casey’s (Morence was found not liable).
- Video surveillance produced in discovery omitted two files (AVI 300 and 800) and Casey’s later had additional undisclosed footage from other camera angles; the court barred the undisclosed video and admonished the jury.
- Casey’s employees testified about store cleanup procedures and that they had not observed a spill shortly before the fall; an EMT’s report stated staff said a prior customer had spilled something that hadn’t yet been cleaned.
- Plaintiff underwent surgery for a superior labrum tear and claimed ongoing pain and loss of activities; he had withdrawn a lost-wage claim before trial.
- Pretrial, plaintiff secured a motion in limine barring cross-examination about an alleged job offer plaintiff had previously testified about; defendant later attempted to impeach that testimony with the alleged offeror’s denial.
- Trial issues included (1) whether the court should have given defendant’s contributory-negligence instruction, (2) whether notice elements were required for employee‑level liability and vicarious corporate liability, (3) whether an adverse‑inference instruction was proper for undisclosed video, and (4) admissibility of impeachment about the withdrawn wage claim/job offer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contributory negligence instruction should be given | Lakin: no evidence he failed to exercise ordinary care; display blocked view; no witness saw obvious hazard | Casey’s: plaintiff failed to keep lookout/use care; jury should decide contributory negligence | Court: refused instruction — defendant’s proffer was vague/boilerplate and no evidence warranted submission |
| Whether jury instructions improperly allowed liability without notice | Lakin: jury was instructed Casey’s required actual or constructive notice; employee (Morence) need not have separate notice element | Casey’s: instructions let Morence and thus Casey’s be liable without proof of notice | Court: no reversible error — issues instruction required notice as to Casey’s; Morence instruction error harmless because jury exonerated him and evidence supported notice |
| Whether adverse‑inference instruction re: undisclosed video was proper | Lakin: missing/other-angle footage supports inference; evidence not cumulative | Casey’s: foundation lacking; court already sanctioned by barring undisclosed video | Court: affirmed instruction — trial court reasonably found defendant failed to produce multiple tapes and instruction was within discretion |
| Whether cross‑examination about alleged job offer was admissible impeachment | Lakin: job offer inquiry was collateral once lost‑wage claim withdrawn; motion in limine proper | Casey’s: false deposition testimony about job offer bears on credibility and damages | Court: barred cross‑examination — impeachment on collateral matter properly excluded after lost‑wage claim withdrawn; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Howat v. Donelson, 305 Ill. App. 3d 183 (1999) (rejects vague boilerplate contributory‑negligence instructions)
- Pedrick v. Peoria & E. R. R. Co., 37 Ill. 2d 494 (1967) (standard for directed verdict/JNOV review)
- Funk v. Venture Stores, Inc., 94 Ill. App. 3d 115 (1981) (impeachment on collateral matters inadmissible when underlying claim withdrawn)
- Olinger v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 21 Ill. 2d 469 (1961) (business liability for slip and fall requires owner‑caused, actual notice, or constructive notice)
- Koonce v. Pacilio, 307 Ill. App. 3d 449 (1999) (standards for submitting IPI No. 5.01 adverse‑inference instruction)
- Hawkes v. Casino Queen, Inc., 336 Ill. App. 3d 994 (2003) (adverse‑presumption instruction requires absence of reasonable excuse and noncumulative missing evidence)