Petraski v. Thedos
2011 IL App (1st) 103218
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- May 28, 2001 collision between Margaret Petraski and Officer Deborah Thedos at Midlothian Turnpike and Central Avenue; Thedos activated lights/siren and ran a red light; Petraski sustained quadriplegia and sue Thedos and Sheriff of Cook County; second trial resulted in verdict for defendants; posttrial motion for new trial granted on three grounds; appellate petition for leave to appeal granted; on interlocutory appeal, court affirmed new trial and addressed admissibility issues
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the new-trial order proper due to closing-argument conduct? | Trial court erred; closing remarks were prejudicial | Arguments were invited or harmless | Yes, new trial affirmed for improper closing arguments |
| Should Dr. Lieken's BAC testimony have been admitted? | Lieken's views on impairment were relevant and probative | Testimony about actual impairment based solely on BAC was improper | No abuse; trial court did not err admitting the portion about BAC but excluding impairment-related conclusions later on was correct |
| Was Dr. Morrison's mental-health testimony admissible on willful/wanton claim? | Mental-health history could explain conduct supporting willful/wanton | Mental state evidence is typically irrelevant to willful/wanton; highly prejudicial | No; trial court properly barred Morrison's testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Zoerner v. Iwan, 250 Ill. App. 3d 576 (Ill. App. 1993) (prejudicial closing arguments may warrant reversal)
- Owen v. Willett Truck Leasing Corp., 61 Ill. App. 2d 395 (Ill. App. 2d 1965) (reversible error when conduct deprives fair trial)
- French v. City of Springfield, 5 Ill. App. 3d 368 (Ill. App. 1972) (taxpayer-funded salary comment was impermissible)
- Guzeldere v. Wallin, 229 Ill. App. 3d 1 (Ill. App. 1992) (closing argument latitude tempered by propriety)
- Hansel v. Chicago Transit Authority, 132 Ill. App. 2d 402 (Ill. App. 1971) (inflammatory closing remarks may be reversible error)
- Thomas v. Brandt, 144 Ill. App. 3d 95 (Ill. App. 1986) (BAC testimony used to infer impairment in some cases)
- Cuellar v. Hoot, 168 Ill. App. 3d 416 (Ill. App. 1988) (BAC testimony admissible under certain conditions; fact-specific)
- Burris v. Madison County, 154 Ill. App. 3d 1064 (Ill. App. 1987) (BAC evidence admissibility influenced by prior rulings)
- Marshall v. Osborn, 213 Ill. App. 3d 134 (Ill. App. 1991) (extreme BAC may support impairment inference)