Logan v. U.S. Bank
65 N.E.3d 1020
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Willie Taylor died July 28, 2003, after being struck by a truck; U.S. Bank, as independent administrator, sued the driver (Lindsey) and lessor (Carmichael) for wrongful death; jury returned a $3,000,000 verdict reduced 50% for decedent’s contributory negligence, producing a $1,500,000 judgment.
- Attorney F. John Cushing III prosecuted the underlying case and, with the bank’s approval, retained Kralovec, Meehan, and Kralovec Meehan, P.C. to assist on appeal; Cushing and the Kralovec defendants voluntarily dismissed the Estate’s appeal; the dismissal was granted and the $1.5M judgment was later affirmed on appeal (U.S. Bank v. Lindsey).
- The decedent’s impairment evidence at trial included expert testimony by Dr. O’Donnell that morphine in decedent’s blood (10–20x a therapeutic level) would cause significant impairment; the jury was instructed impairment could be weighed in assessing contributory negligence.
- The decedent’s coworkers and expert witnesses testified the truck’s backup alarm sounded and likely could have been heard; the jury found the decedent 50% contributorily negligent.
- Surviving next of kin sued Cushing and the Kralovec defendants for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, claiming dismissal of the appeal (without their consent) caused loss of the possibility of reinstating the $3M verdict.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the attorney defendants, finding plaintiffs could not prove proximate causation (i.e., that the appellate court would have reversed the contributory-negligence finding); this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty and breach (attorneys’ handling/dismissal of appeal) | Attorneys owed next of kin a duty and breached it by dismissing appeal without consent and without seeking consideration | Attorneys contend no breach (acted in good faith) and dispute duty; dismissal was reasonable | Court assumed duty/breach arguendo but decided case on proximate cause and granted summary judgment for defendants |
| Proximate cause — would appellate court have reversed contributory-negligence finding? | But for dismissal, appellate court would have found trial error (admission of Dr. O’Donnell’s testimony) and reinstated $3M verdict | Admission of the expert was not erroneous; ample evidence supported contributory negligence, so appeal would not have succeeded | |
| Admissibility of expert testimony on narcotics impairment | Plaintiffs argued expert testimony was prejudicial and should have been excluded on appeal | Defendants argued trial court did not abuse discretion admitting expert testimony given very high morphine level | Court held admission was within trial court discretion given 10–20x morphine level; appellate court would not have reversed |
| Manifest weight challenge to jury’s contributory-negligence percentage | Plaintiffs argued the 50% contributory-negligence finding was against the manifest weight and would have been reversed on appeal | Defendants argued evidence (alarms, eyewitnesses, and impairment) supported jury findings; manifest-weight reversal inappropriate | Court found jury verdict not against manifest weight; percentage determination for jury; proximate cause lacking, summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Bank v. Lindsey, 397 Ill. App. 3d 437 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (affirming underlying judgment and discussing admissibility/inferences from impairment evidence)
- Petraski v. Thedos, 382 Ill. App. 3d 22 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008) (addressing limits on expert impairment testimony and admissibility concerns)
- Governmental Interinsurance Exchange v. Judge, 221 Ill. 2d 195 (Ill. 2006) (proximate cause in appellate legal malpractice is a question of law)
- In re Estate of Hoover, 155 Ill. 2d 402 (Ill. 1993) (standard of review for summary judgment explained)
- Fox v. Seiden, 382 Ill. App. 3d 288 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008) (elements required to sustain an attorney malpractice claim)