Pister v. Matrix Service Industrial Contractors
998 N.E.2d 123
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Early-morning collision killed Jeffrey Pister and driver Brian Stultz; Stultz was driving from Ohio to a Champaign, IL job where he was to work for Matrix Service (Matrix).
- Pister (independent administrator of Jeffrey’s estate) sued Matrix and Stultz’s estate asserting respondeat superior (two theories: "traveling employee" and "special errand"); the estate was later dismissed and is not on appeal.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to Matrix on the "traveling employee" theory (precluding that theory at trial) but allowed the "special errand" theory to go to the jury; docket entry initially misstated denial of summary judgment.
- At trial plaintiff relied mainly on family testimony that Stultz transported welding rods at Matrix’s request; Matrix presented evidence that the rods and angle iron were personal scrap and that the Champaign job required no welding.
- The court excluded mention of Stultz’s lawful oxycodone use (redacting depositions and barring letters referencing it) and allowed the jury to hear that the estate had once been a party to impeach witness motive.
- Jury found for Matrix on the special-errand theory; plaintiff appealed, arguing errors in summary judgment, evidentiary rulings, and jury instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by granting partial summary judgment precluding a "traveling employee" respondeat superior theory | Pister: the "traveling employee" exception (used in workers' comp) should apply to tort/respondeat superior so employer is vicariously liable for employee while traveling for work | Matrix: "traveling employee" exception is a workers’ compensation doctrine and should not be extended to tort liability | Court: Affirmed — declined to extend the Act’s "traveling employee" principle to respondeat superior; summary judgment proper as matter of law on that theory |
| Whether exclusion/redaction of evidence about Stultz’s lawful oxycodone use and related letters prejudiced plaintiff | Pister: redactions made family testimony misleading and hid true reason insurance initially denied benefits, undermining witness credibility | Matrix: oxycodone evidence was irrelevant to the limited issue (special errand) and unduly prejudicial; family had independent motive to benefit if employment found | Court: No abuse of discretion — exclusion/redaction did not materially prejudice Pister and protected the jury from undue confusion/prejudice |
| Whether allowing evidence that the Estate had been a dismissed party improperly invited speculation | Pister: allowing this permitted juror speculation about reasons for dismissal and improperly suggested bias | Matrix: evidence relevant to potential witness bias/motive to testify favorably (possible insurance or WC benefits) | Court: No abuse — disclosure allowed to show potential motive/bias; curative IPI instruction given to limit speculation |
| Whether the court erred in jury-instruction handling (sua sponte comment on special interrogatory, refusal of IPI agency instructions, and non-IPI wording raising burden) | Pister: court’s sua sponte comment and remedial instruction improperly guided jury; refusal of IPI instructions and wording "at Matrix’s direction" raised Pister’s burden | Matrix: any infirmities harmless given overwhelming evidence for Matrix; non-IPI instruction appropriately confined liability to special-errand facts | Court: One instructional error (sua sponte comment) acknowledged but held harmless; refusal of broad IPI instructions proper because they would reopen "traveling employee" theory; non-IPI wording acceptable |
Key Cases Cited
- Chicago Bridge & Iron, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, 248 Ill. App. 3d 687 (1993) (applied "traveling employee" concept in workers’ compensation context)
- Pyne v. Witmer, 129 Ill. 2d 351 (1989) (scope-of-employment analysis; frolic/detour principles)
- Bagent v. Blessing Care Corp., 224 Ill. 2d 154 (2007) (standards for summary judgment review)
- Beelman Trucking v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 233 Ill. 2d 364 (2009) (purpose and scope of the Workers’ Compensation Act)
- Schultz v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter R.R. Corp., 201 Ill. 2d 260 (2002) (rule that IPI instructions should be used when applicable)
- Lozado v. City of Chicago, 279 Ill. App. 3d 285 (1996) (special interrogatory must not be explained to jurors in a way that harmonizes it with the general verdict)
- Woods v. Cole, 181 Ill. 2d 512 (1998) (principal may be liable for tortious actions of agent)