Larkin v. George
65 N.E.3d 1002
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- On Jan. 27, 2011, Larkin was rear-ended in a multi-car crash; George admitted negligent driving but disputed causation and injury extent.
- Larkin sued for injuries to his left ankle/foot; he sought to exclude vehicle-damage photographs by motion in limine; court limited photos to show only "point of impact."
- At the scene trooper and defendant testified Larkin made no complaints of pain; Larkin sought urgent care next day and later had two ankle surgeries.
- At trial the court reviewed contested photographs outside the jury and ultimately did not admit them; defense counsel attempted to reference them during testimony but the jury never saw the photos.
- Jury returned a unanimous verdict for defendant; Larkin moved for a new trial arguing (1) violation of the in limine order/photographs, (2) verdict against the manifest weight of the evidence, and (3) juror misconduct/independent investigation. Trial court denied the motion; Larkin appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Larkin's Argument | George's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense violated the motion in limine by attempting to use vehicle-damage photos | Defense repeatedly tried to introduce/mention photos and prejudiced Larkin by leaving jury to speculate | Court limited photos to point of impact; defense followed the court's procedure and photos were never shown to jury | No violation; remark was invited by Larkin and photos were excluded, so no new trial |
| Whether verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence | Medical experts proved injuries and causation; no rebuttal evidence from defendant | Evidence conflicted; trooper and defendant said Larkin showed no pain at scene; jury credited defense | Not against manifest weight; credibility and causation were for the jury; record on appeal incomplete for experts |
| Whether jurors conducted independent investigation or were influenced by extrinsic media about Larkin | Jurors likely knew of Larkin’s unrelated criminal charges and reached quick verdict (<40 min), suggesting misconduct | No evidence jurors engaged in outside research; court instructed jurors not to investigate and voir dire showed no prior knowledge | No juror misconduct shown; denial of new trial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lawlor v. North American Corp. of Illinois, 2012 IL 112530 (Illinois 2012) (standard for granting new trial when verdict is against manifest weight of the evidence)
- Compton v. Ubilluz, 353 Ill. App. 3d 863 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (requirements to obtain new trial for violation of in limine: order specific, violation clear, prejudice shown)
- Anderson v. Smith, 91 Ill. App. 3d 938 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980) (speculation about juror exposure to excluded evidence is insufficient to show prejudice)
- Clemons v. Alton & Southern R.R. Co., 56 Ill. App. 3d 328 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978) (a party cannot complain about an error it invited)
- Jackson v. Seib, 372 Ill. App. 3d 1061 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007) (definition of verdict against the manifest weight of the evidence)
- Webster v. Hartman, 195 Ill. 2d 426 (Ill. 2001) (appellant’s burden to present a complete record on appeal)
- Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389 (Ill. 1984) (presumption trial court order is correct absent complete record)
- People v. Holmes, 69 Ill. 2d 507 (Ill. 1978) (juror independent investigation can require reversal when extraneous information affects an essential issue)