Meeks v. Great America, LLC
2017 IL App (2d) 160655
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In 2011 Meeks was injured on a Six Flags waterslide and later sued Great America alleging negligence and res ipsa loquitur; defendant pleaded contributory negligence.
- Plaintiff refiled after a voluntary dismissal; trial was set for April 2016.
- During discovery defendant initially failed to identify several occurrence witnesses (dispatcher, run‑out attendant, supervisor who "cycled" the slide) and did not produce two incident documents (a "Witness Statement" and a "Lifeguard Rescue Report").
- Defendant produced the witness identities and the two documents only after plaintiff deposed supervisor Nicholas Hollendonner shortly before trial.
- Plaintiff moved for sanctions (including default or striking the defense) or, alternatively, asking the court to give an adverse‑inference jury instruction (IPI Civil No. 5.01, modified). Defendant sought a mistrial or a short continuance to take depositions.
- The trial court found the failure to disclose was not willful, denied default/mistrial, but gave a modified IPI No. 5.01 instructing the jury they could infer the missing witnesses/testimony and reports would be adverse to defendant; plaintiff prevailed at trial and was awarded judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Meeks' Argument | Great America’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sanctions were warranted for late disclosure of witness identities and incident reports | Sanctions required; at minimum give an adverse‑inference instruction (modified IPI No. 5.01) because evidence/witnesses were within defendant's control and not produced | Sanctions were unwarranted or, if warranted, mistrial/continuance and costs were the proper remedy rather than an adverse‑inference instruction | Court affirmed trial court’s discretion to impose a remedial sanction; giving a modified adverse‑inference instruction was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether IPI Civil No. 5.01 may be given absent willful discovery misconduct | Instruction appropriate to effect discovery and ensure trial on merits; plaintiff asked court to find foundational elements so jury need not decide them | IPI No. 5.01 should not be given unless willful misconduct; if given it must include the pattern foundational elements so jury decides admissibility/weight | Court rejected claim that instruction is limited to willful misconduct and upheld use of a modified instruction; not reversible error |
| Whether trial court erred by modifying the pattern instruction without a foundational finding | Plaintiff sought a modified instruction that shifted foundational findings to the court to avoid exposing discovery violation facts to jury | Defendant argued modification was improper and shifted burden / removed rebuttable presumption; should have preserved objection | Defendant failed to specifically preserve objection to modification at trial; appellate court declined to reach the unpreserved merit, affirming the sanction and instruction |
| Whether defendant’s proposed alternative remedy (short delay and depositions) was preferable | Delay would prejudice plaintiff (PTSD, retraumatization) and might be futile if witnesses could not be located | Proposed continuance and assessment of costs was a reasonable remedial alternative | Trial court reasonably rejected delay given plaintiff’s hardship and uncertainty of locating witnesses; sanction chosen was within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Buehler v. Whalen, 70 Ill. 2d 51 (Ill. 1977) (illustrates discovery misconduct that can justify severe sanctions, including adverse inference)
- Martinez v. Pfizer Laboratories Division, 216 Ill. App. 3d 360 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991) (sanctions under Rule 219(c) should aim to accomplish discovery and permit trial on the merits)
- Tokar v. Crestwood Imports, Inc., 177 Ill. App. 3d 422 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988) (party must timely make specific objections to preserve instructional error for appeal)
- Dillon v. Evanston Hospital, 199 Ill. 2d 483 (Ill. 2002) (court may exercise discretion to reach unpreserved issues in exceptional circumstances)
- Tokar reiterated procedural preservation principle relied upon by the court in refusing to consider defendant’s alternative instructional argument (procedural citation above)