2020 IL App (1st) 190202
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- On Aug. 17, 2012, Pan‑Oceanic employee Lavonta Green lost control of a truck hauling a skid steer and collided with plaintiff Fletcher McQueen; Pan‑Oceanic admitted Green was its employee and liable under respondeat superior.
- McQueen sued Green (negligence) and Pan‑Oceanic (negligence for training/supervision/entrustment and punitive/willful‑and‑wanton conduct). The case was tried in two phases (liability/compensatory, then punitive if warranted).
- Jury returned Verdict B: found for plaintiff against Pan‑Oceanic (not against Green); awarded $163,227.45 in compensatory damages; special interrogatories: Green — No (not reckless); Pan‑Oceanic — Yes (reckless); punitive phase: $1,000,000 against Pan‑Oceanic.
- Pan‑Oceanic moved for judgment n.o.v. or a new trial arguing (inter alia) the jury instructions were incorrect (IPI Civil No. 50.01 was given without its final sentence), the special interrogatories used undefined/conflicting language (“reckless”), the verdicts were legally inconsistent given its admission of agency, and key burden/issues instructions were missing.
- The trial court denied posttrial relief; on appeal the First District reversed and remanded for a new trial, concluding the verdicts were legally inconsistent and the instructions (including the omission of the final sentence of IPI 50.01 and missing burden/issues instructions) prevented a fair trial. Presiding Justice Mikva dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Omission of final sentence of IPI Civil No. 50.01 (linking agent/principal liability) | Pan‑Oceanic could be independently negligent (e.g., negligent training) so full instruction would be improper | Pan‑Oceanic argued that, having admitted agency/respondeat superior, it could not be liable if Green was not liable; final sentence should have been given | Court: omission was erroneous — once employer admits respondeat superior, employer cannot be independently liable on derivative theories; full instruction should have been given (failure contributed to reversible error) |
| Form/definition of special interrogatories (use of term "reckless") | The interrogatories were proper and broadly worded to capture willful and wanton conduct | The interrogatories used "reckless" which was not defined in instructions and conflicted with the willful/wanton definition; confusing/misleading | Court: defendant waived form objection by agreeing to wording, but waiver did not cure other instruction defects; nonetheless, form argument partly forfeited |
| Alleged inconsistent verdicts (Green exonerated; Pan‑Oceanic found reckless) | The jury could find Pan‑Oceanic independently liable for company conduct (training/ordering) even if Green was not negligent | Finding employer reckless while exonerating employee is legally inconsistent where employer admitted respondeat superior; such verdicts must be set aside | Court: verdicts were legally inconsistent — employer’s willful/wanton liability cannot stand if employee found not negligent under respondeat superior; new trial required |
| Missing burden‑of‑proof and issues instructions for willful/wanton count | Trial record and closing arguments adequately addressed burden and issues | Trial court failed to give required burden and issues IPI instructions; defendant should have tendered them but absence deprived jury of clear legal framework | Court: missing/defective instructions (and erroneous 50.01) prevented fair trial; cumulative instructional error warrants new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. Evanston Hospital, 199 Ill. 2d 483 (Ill. 2002) (jury instructions must state law fairly and not mislead)
- Simmons v. Garces, 198 Ill. 2d 541 (Ill. 2002) (function and form requirements for special interrogatories)
- Redmond v. Socha, 216 Ill. 2d 622 (Ill. 2005) (legally inconsistent verdicts require setting aside and new trial)
- Gant v. L.U. Transport, Inc., 331 Ill. App. 3d 924 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002) (employer's direct negligence claims such as negligent entrustment/hiring are barred once respondeat superior liability is admitted)
- Lockett v. Bi‑State Transit Authority, 94 Ill. 2d 66 (Ill. 1983) (employer may be found willful and wanton even if agent only negligent in some contexts)
- Neff v. Davenport Packing Co., 131 Ill. App. 2d 791 (Ill. App. Ct. 1971) (derivative nature of employer claims once respondeat superior is asserted)
- Moore v. Jewel Tea Co., 46 Ill. 2d 288 (Ill. 1970) (general‑verdict rule)
- Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co., 231 Ill. 2d 516 (Ill. 2008) (forfeiture rule for failing to object to jury instructions)
- LaPook v. City of Chicago, 211 Ill. App. 3d 856 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991) (distinguishing waiver of interrogatory form from the right to challenge inconsistent verdicts)