Stanphill v. Ortberg
129 N.E.3d 1167
Ill.2019Background
- Keith Stanphill met once with EAP counselor Lori Ortberg on Sept. 30, 2005; he died by suicide on Oct. 6, 2005. Plaintiff sued for wrongful death alleging Ortberg’s inadequate assessment and failure to recognize/act on suicide risk.
- Ortberg’s file showed self-report items indicating severe symptoms, but her notes recorded denial of a suicide plan; she diagnosed adjustment disorder and referred Keith for follow-up counseling.
- Competing experts disputed whether Keith was suicidal on Sept. 30 and whether Ortberg breached the standard of care or proximately caused his death.
- At trial the jury returned a general verdict for plaintiff (damages awarded) but answered “No” to a defendant-proposed special interrogatory: “Was it reasonably foreseeable to Lori Ortberg on September 30, 2005, that Keith Stanphill would commit suicide on or before October 9, 2005?”
- The trial court entered judgment for defendants as inconsistent with the general verdict; the appellate court reversed, holding the interrogatory was improperly worded and ambiguous and therefore should not have been submitted; this Court affirmed the appellate court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the special interrogatory was in proper form | Interrogatory was confusing because it focused on foreseeability to Ortberg rather than an objective standard (reasonable person/reasonable professional) | Interrogatory was proper; in context with instructions it asked whether the suicide was "reasonably foreseeable to Ortberg" as a reasonably careful licensed clinical social worker | The interrogatory was improper: it used a subjective framing (foreseeability to Ortberg) rather than an objective standard and should not have been given |
| Whether a subjective foreseeability interrogatory can be used in professional-negligence cases | Foreseeability must be judged objectively (what a reasonable person or reasonable professional would foresee) | Claimed professional context justified asking about foreseeability to the particular defendant | Court: Even in professional-negligence cases the question must be objective; if professional standard is used, interrogatory should ask what a reasonable licensed clinical social worker would foresee |
| Whether Garcia v. Seneca supports use of this interrogatory wording | n/a (plaintiff distinguished Garcia) | Relied on Garcia, where appellate court had accepted similar wording and the trial court entered judgment on a negative interrogatory answer | Court: Garcia is distinguishable; Garcia did not address objection to subjective wording and cannot be read to approve subjective interrogatories; Hooper (from which Garcia borrowed wording) actually used objective phrasing |
| Whether the jury’s negative answer to the interrogatory was necessarily inconsistent with the general verdict | Jury’s general verdict for plaintiff need not be negated where interrogatory was ambiguous; answer not necessarily irreconcilable | Jury’s negative special finding was irreconcilable and should control under statute | Court did not decide inconsistency issue because interrogatory was improperly worded; appellate court’s judgment reversing trial-court entry of judgment on interrogatory affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Turcios v. The DeBruler Co., 2015 IL 117962 (suicide as intervening act; foreseeability is objective)
- Hooper v. County of Cook, 366 Ill. App. 3d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) (special interrogatory testing foreseeability must be objective)
- Garcia v. Seneca Nursing Home, 2011 IL App (1st) 103085 (App. Ct. decision where similar interrogatory was used; not dispositive here)
- Lee v. Chicago Transit Authority, 152 Ill. 2d 432 (Ill. 1992) (foreseeability is an objective legal-cause inquiry)
- City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 213 Ill. 2d 351 (Ill. 2004) (objective foreseeability standard)
- Williams v. Manchester, 228 Ill. 2d 404 (Ill. 2008) (wrongful death elements mirror negligence)
- Kirk v. Michael Reese Hospital & Medical Center, 117 Ill. 2d 507 (Ill. 1987) (wrongful-death negligence principles)
- Simmons v. Garces, 198 Ill. 2d 541 (Ill. 2002) (special interrogatory read in context of other jury instructions)