Wing v. Chicago Transit Authority
2016 IL App (1st) 153517
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Betty Wing sued the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) after an alleged wheelchair-lift mishandling on a CTA bus on September 21, 2013, injuring her foot; a jury returned a defense verdict.
- Wing appealed pro se, alleging jury-selection problems, counsel misconduct, courtroom departures by defense counsel contrary to a judge’s instruction, and other trial irregularities.
- The record on appeal lacked the trial transcript, many trial exhibits, and the video shown to the jury; Wing’s opening brief included letters and exhibits not in the appellate record.
- Wing filed a timely notice of appeal but did not file any posttrial motion in the trial court.
- The CTA argued the appeal was procedurally defective (no posttrial motion; deficient record) and Wing’s brief violated appellate briefing rules; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of issues for appeal | Wing claimed trial errors (jury selection, counsel/judge conduct) and sought review of the verdict | CTA: Wing failed to file a posttrial motion, so issues are forfeited | Court: Forfeited — Wing did not file a posttrial motion, so nothing preserved for review |
| Sufficiency of the appellate record | Wing described trial events in letters and attached documents to her brief | CTA: Record lacks trial transcript and key exhibits; cannot meaningfully review | Court: Record insufficient; appellant bears burden to provide proceedings; affirm under presumption trial court acted properly |
| Compliance with appellate briefing rules (Rule 341) | Wing’s pro se brief contained letters and documents but lacked required statements, record citations, and legal argument | CTA: Brief fails Rule 341(h) and should be struck/dismissed | Court: Brief procedurally deficient; deficiencies provide additional basis to disregard unsupported arguments and affirm |
| Merits of claimed trial errors | Wing alleged juror bias, counsel failings, and judge inaction harmed her right to fair trial | CTA argued (alternatively) no substantive basis for reversal even on merits | Court: Did not reach merits due to procedural defaults and insufficient record; affirmed judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Parentage of Kimble, 204 Ill. App. 3d 914 (Ill. App. Ct.) (failure to file posttrial motion forfeits issues on appeal)
- Webster v. Hartman, 195 Ill. 2d 426 (Ill. 2001) (issues about conduct of proceedings require report of proceedings for appellate review)
- Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389 (Ill. 1984) (presumption that trial court’s order conforms to law where record is incomplete)
- Corral v. Mervis Industries, 217 Ill. 2d 144 (Ill. 2005) (appellant bears burden to present a sufficient record on appeal)
- Twardowski v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc., 321 Ill. App. 3d 509 (Ill. App. Ct.) (pro se status does not excuse compliance with appellate rules)
- Rock Island County v. Boalbey, 242 Ill. App. 3d 461 (Ill. App. Ct.) (same principle regarding pro se appellants and record requirements)
- Thrall Car Mfg. Co. v. Lindquist, 145 Ill. App. 3d 712 (Ill. App. Ct.) (appellate court not a repository for undeveloped arguments; need cogent brief)
- Thornton v. Garcini, 237 Ill. 2d 100 (Ill. 2010) (appellate review generally forfeited absent objection at trial and inclusion in posttrial motion)