Bifurcated Deliberations for Multiple Plaintiffs

Jury Instructions-IL > Motor Vehicle Accidents > Bifurcated Deliberations for Multiple Plaintiffs

Joseph Otero and Madeline Smith, a minor, by her Mother, Angela Otero v. Angela Lawrence, City of Chicago 08 L 13324

BIFURCATED DELIBERATIONS FOR MULTIPLE PLAINTIFFS

This was a motor vehicle accident which resulted in a personal injury lawsuit brought by the driver and his passenger, his 7-year old granddaughter. The jury was directed to bifurcate its verdicts by first deciding the grandfather’s case and after rendering a verdict, proceed decide the granddaughter’s case due to an odd pleading anomaly. Although the defendant claimed contributory negligence as to the grandfather, it failed to file a third-party complaint against the grandfather for injuries to the granddaughter. Therefore, the granddaughter’s claim was directed out on negligence, while the grandfather’s case was not. To avoid skewing the defendant’s contributory negligence claim against the grandfather by revealing a directed verdict on negligence against the defendant as to the granddaughter, the jury was instructed to separately decide the comparative claim as to the grandfather, and then reconvene and decide liability and damages as to the granddaughter.

(Note: The jury completely understood the process per a post verdicts meeting in the jury room.)

================================================

JOSEPH OTERO v. LAWRENCE & CITY

IPI 1.01 – Modified by the court to be read at end of case, and updated by IPI Committee in 2009 to include old IPI 3.01 language)

Now that the evidence has concluded, I will further instruct you as to the law and your duties. The law regarding this case is contained in the instructions I will give to you. You must consider the Court’s instructions as a whole, not picking out some instructions and disregarding others.

41.01 Two or More Plaintiffs

The Plaintiff in this case are: Joseph Otero and Madeline Smith, a minor, by her Mother, Angela Otero

The Defendant in this case are: Angela Lawrence and The City of Chicago

The rights of the party plaintiffs, Joseph Otero and Madeline Smith, a minor, by her mother, Angela Otero, are separate and distinct. Each is entitled to a fair consideration of his or her own case and you will decide each plaintiff’s case as if it were a separate lawsuit. Each plaintiff’s case must be governed by the instructions applicable to that case.

Therefore, your first duty is to decide the matter of

Joseph Otero, Plaintiff

Angela Lawrence and the City of Chicago, Defendants

After you have decided that case, then you will then return to the jury room to decide the matter of

Madeline Smith, a minor, by her Mother, Angela Otero

vs.

Angela Lawrence and The City of Chicago, Defendants

IPI 1.01 – Modified by the court to be read at end of case, and updated by IPI Committee in 2009 to include old IPI 3.01 language) continued.

It is your duty to resolve this case by determining the facts and following the law given in the instructions. Your verdict must not be based upon speculation, prejudice, or sympathy. Each party, whether a corporation or an individual, should receive your same fair consideration.

I have not meant to indicate any opinion as to the facts of this case by any of my rulings, remarks, or instructions.

You will decide what facts have been proven. Facts may be proven by evidence or reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence. Evidence consists of the testimony of witnesses and of exhibits admitted by the court. You should consider all the evidence without regard to which party produced it. You may use common sense gained from your experiences in life in evaluating what you see and hear during trial.

You are the only judges of the credibility of the witnesses. You will decide the weight to be given to the testimony of each of them. In evaluating the credibility of a witness you may consider that witness’ ability and opportunity to observe, memory, manner, interest, bias, qualifications, experience, and any previous inconsistent statement or act by the witness concerning an issue important to the case.

The use of cell phones, text messaging, Internet postings and Internet access devices in connection with your deliberations violates the rules of evidence and you are prohibited from using them

You must make your decision based on what you recall of the evidence. You will not receive a written transcript of the testimony when you retire to the jury room.

An opening statement is what an attorney expects the evidence will be. A closing argument is given at the conclusion of the case and is a summary of what an attorney contends the evidence has shown. If any statement or argument of an attorney is not supported by the law or the evidence you should disregard that statement.

IPI 2.01 – Evidence Deposition

The testimony of a doctor was presented by the reading of the testimony Dr. Schwartz and Dr. Slavin. You should give this testimony the same consideration you would give it had the witness personally appeared in court.

IPI 3.08 – Opinion Testimony

You have heard a witness give opinions about matters requiring knowledge and skill. You should judge this testimony in the same way you judge the testimony from any other witness. The fact that such person has given an opinion does not mean that you are required to accept it. Give the testimony whatever weight you think it deserves, considering the reasons given for the opinion, the witness’ qualifications, and all of the other evidence in the case

IPI 3.04 Circumstantial Evidence

A fact or a group of facts, may, based on logic and common sense, lead you to a conclusion as to other facts. This is known as circumstantial evidence. A fact may be proved by circumstantial evidence. For example, if you are in a building and a person enters who is wet and is holding an umbrella, you might conclude that it was raining outside. Circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same consideration as any other type of

evidence.

IPI 10.01 Negligence—Adult—Definition

When I use the word “negligence” in these instructions, I mean the failure to do something which a reasonably careful person would do, or the doing of something which a reasonably careful person would not do, under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence. The law does not say how a reasonably careful person would act under those circumstances. That is for you to decide.

IPI 10.02 Ordinary Care—Adult—Definition

When I use the words “ordinary care,” I mean the care a reasonably careful person would use under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence. The law does not say how a reasonably careful person would act under those circumstances. That is for you to decide.

IPI 50.01 Both Principal and Agent Sued—No Issue as to Agency

The defendants are sued as principal and agent. The defendant, City of Chicago, is the principal and the defendant, Angela Lawrence, is its agent. If you find that the defendant, Angela Lawrence, is liable, then you must find that the defendant, City of Chicago, is also liable. However, if you find that Angela Lawrence is not liable, then you must find that City of Chicago is not liable.

IPI 10.04 Duty to Use Ordinary Care—Adult—Defendant

It was the duty of the defendants, Angela Lawrence and the City of Chicago, before and at the time of the occurrence, to use ordinary care for the safety of the plaintiffs. That means it was the duty of the defendants to be free from negligence.

IPI B10.03 “HIS” Duty of Care Adult Plaintiff—Contributory Negligence

It was the duty of the plaintiff, Joseph Otero, before and at the time of the occurrence, to use ordinary care for his own safety. A plaintiff is contributorily negligent if (1) he failed to use ordinary care for his own safety and (2) such failure to use such ordinary care is a proximate cause of the alleged injuries.

Joseph Otero’s contributory negligence, if any, which is 50% or less of the total proximate cause of the injury for which recovery is sought, does not bar recovery. However, the total amount of damages to which Joseph Otero would otherwise be entitled is reduced in proportion to the amount of his negligence. This is known as comparative negligence.

If Joseph Otero’s contributory negligence is more than 50% of the total proximate cause of the injury or damage for which recovery is sought, then the defendant shall be found not liable.

IPI 60.01 Violation of Statute, Ordinance, or Administrative Regulation

There was in force in the State of Illinois at the time of the occurrence in question

a certain statute which provided that:

The driver of any vehicle shall obey the instructions of any official traffic control device applicable thereto.

No vehicle may be driven upon any highway of this State at a speed which is greater than is reasonable and proper with regard to traffic conditions or endangering the safety of any person or property. Speed must be decreased as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person or vehicle on the highway.

If you decide that a party violated the statute on the occasion in question, then you may consider that fact together with all the other facts and circumstances in evidence in determining whether and to what extent, if any, a party was negligent before and at the time of the occurrence.

IPI 70.01 Duty of Driver Using Highway

It is the duty of every driver of a vehicle using a public highway to exercise ordinary care at all times to avoid placing himself, herself, or others in danger and to exercise ordinary care at all times to avoid a collision.

IPI 15.01 Proximate Cause—Definition (updated Sept 2009)

When I use the expression “proximate cause,” I mean a cause that, in the natural or ordinary course of events, produced the plaintiff’s injury.

IPI 20.01 – ISSUES – Negligence

The plaintiff, Joseph Otero, claims to have sustained injuries, and that the defendants were negligent in one or more of the following respects:

Failed to keep a proper lookout;

Drove vehicle at a speed that was too fast for traffic conditions

Failed to reduce speed to avoid an accident;

Failed to obey traffic control devices.

The plaintiff further claims that one or more of the foregoing was a proximate cause of his injuries.

The defendants deny doing any of the things claimed by the plaintiff, deny negligence in doing any of the things claimed by the plaintiff, and deny that any claimed act or omission on the part of the defendants was a proximate cause of Joseph Otero’s claimed injuries.

The defendants claims that the plaintiff, Joseph Otero, was contributorily negligent in one or more of the following respects:

Failed to keep a proper lookout;

Failed to obey traffic control devices.

The defendants further claims that one or more of the foregoing was a proximate cause of Joseph Otero’s injuries.

The defendants further deny that the plaintiff was injured or sustained damages to the extent claimed.

The plaintiff denies doing any of the things claimed by defendants, denies

negligence in doing any of the things claimed by defendants, and denies that any claimed act or omission by the Plaintiff, Joseph Otero, was a proximate cause of the claimed injuries.

IPI 21.01 – BURDEN OF PROOF

When I say that a party has the burden of proof on any proposition, or use the expression “if you find,” or “if you decide,” I mean you must be persuaded, considering all the evidence in the case, that the proposition on which a party has the burden of proof is more probably true than not true.

IPI B21.02 BURDEN – COMPARATIVE

The plaintiff, Joseph Otero, has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:

First, that the defendants acted or failed to act in one of the ways claimed by the plaintiffs as stated to you in these instructions and that in so acting, or failing to act, the defendants were negligent;

Second, that the plaintiff suffered injuries;

Third, that the negligence of the defendants was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any of these propositions has not been proved, then your verdict should be for the defendants.

On the other hand, if you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these propositions has been proved, then you must consider the defendants’ claim that the plaintiff, Joseph Otero, was contributorily negligent.

As to that claim, the defendants have the burden of proving both of the following propositions:

First, that the plaintiff, Joseph Otero, acted or failed to act in one of the ways claimed by the defendants as stated to you in these instructions and that in so acting, or failing to act, the plaintiff was negligent;

Second, that plaintiff’s negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s own injuries.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the plaintiff, Joseph Otero, has proved all the propositions required of the plaintiff, and that the defendants have not proved both of the propositions required of the defendants, then your verdict should be for Joseph Otero and you will not reduce plaintiff’s damages.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the plaintiff, Joseph Otero, has proved all the propositions required of the plaintiff, and that the defendants have proved both of the propositions required of the defendants, and if you find that Joseph Otero’s contributory negligence was 50% or less of the total proximate cause of the damage for which recovery is sought, then your verdict should be for Joseph Otero, and you will reduce the plaintiff’s damages in the manner stated to you in these instructions.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the defendants have proved both the propositions required of the defendants and if you find that Joseph Otero’s contributory negligence was more than 50% of the total proximate cause of damage for which recovery is sought, then your verdict should be for the defendants.

IPI 30.01 Measure of Damages

If you decide for the plaintiff, Joseph Otero, on the question of liability, you must then fix the amount of money which will reasonably and fairly compensate him for any of the following elements of damages proved by the evidence to have resulted from the negligence of the defendant, taking into consideration the nature, extent and duration of the injury and the aggravation of any pre-existing ailment or condition.

The reasonable expense of necessary medical care, treatment and services

received as a result of the injuries.

The pain and suffering experienced and reasonably certain to be experienced in

the future as a result of the injuries.

The loss of a normal life experienced and reasonably certain to be experience in

the future as a result of the injuries.

30.04.02 Loss of a Normal Life—Definition

When I use the expression “loss of a normal life”, I mean the temporary or permanent diminished ability to enjoy life. This includes a person’s inability to pursue the pleasurable aspects of life.

Whether any of these elements of damages has been proved by the evidence is for you to determine.

30.21 Measure of Damages—Personal Injury—Aggravation of Pre–Existing Condition—No Limitations

If you decide for the plaintiff on the question of liability, you may not deny or limit the plaintiff’s right to damages resulting from this occurrence because any injury resulted from an aggravation of a pre-existing condition or a pre-existing condition which rendered the plaintiff more susceptible to injury.

IPI.36.01 In Absence of Liability—No Occasion to Consider Damages

If you decide for the defendants on the question of liability, you will have no occasion to consider the question of damages.

IPI B45.01 – FORMS OF VERDICT – COMPARATIVE

When you retire to the jury room you will first select a foreperson. He or she will preside during your deliberations.

Your verdict must be unanimous.

Forms of verdicts are supplied with these instructions. After you have reached your verdict, fill in and sign the appropriate form of verdict and return it to the court. Your verdict must be signed by each of you. You should not write or mark upon this or any of the other instructions given to you by the court.

The Plaintiff in this case for your deliberation is: Joseph Otero

The Defendants in this case for your deliberations are: Angela Lawrence and The City of Chicago

If you find Joseph Otero, the Plaintiff, and against the Defendants and if you further find that Plaintiff was not contributorily negligent, then you should use Verdict Form A.

If you find for Joseph Otero, the Plaintiff, and against the Defendants, and if you further find that Plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by a combination of Defendant’s negligence and Joseph Otero’s contributory negligence, and that Joseph Otero’s contributory negligence was 50% or less of the total proximate cause of damages for which recovery is sought, then you should use Verdict Form B.

If you find for Defendants and against Joseph Otero, the Plaintiff, or if you find that Joseph Otero’s contributory negligence was more than 50% of the total proximate cause of damages for which recovery is sought, then you should use Verdict Form C.

IPI B45.01.A – VERDICT FORM A

VERDICT FORM A

We, the jury, find for the Plaintiff, Joseph Otero, and against the Defendants, Angela

Lawrence and The City of Chicago. We assess the damages as to Joseph Otero in the sum

of $______________________________________________, itemized as follows:

Reasonable expense of necessary medical care $_________________

Pain and suffering $_________________

Loss of a normal life experienced. $_________________

[Signature Lines ]

—————————————————– —————————————————-

(Foreperson)

—————————————————– —————————————————–

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————–

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————–

B45.01.B Verdict Form B- COMPARATIVE

VERDICT FORM B

We, the jury, find for the Plaintiff, Joseph Otero, and against the Defendants, Angela

Lawrence and The City of Chicago. We assess the damages as to Joseph Otero in the sum

of $______________________________________________, itemized as follows:

Reasonable expense of necessary medical care $_________________

Pain and suffering $_________________

Loss of a normal life experienced. $_________________

We further find the following:

First: Without taking into consideration the question

of reduction of damages due to the negligence of the Plaintiff,

Joseph Otero, we find that the total amount of damages suffered

by Plaintiff as a proximate result of the occurrence in question is $_________________

Second: Assuming that 100% represents the total

combined negligence of all persons whose negligence proximately

contributed to the plaintiff’s damages, including the Plaintiff,

Joseph Otero, and the Defendant, we find that the percentage of

such negligence attributable solely to Plaintiff is ________ percent(%)

Third: After reducing the total damages sustained by

Plaintiff by the percentage of negligence attributable solely to

Plaintiff, we assess Joseph Otero’s recoverable damages

in the sum of $__________________.

==============

[Signature Lines ]

—————————————————– —————————————————-

(Foreperson)

—————————————————– —————————————————–

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————–

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————–

IPI4501.C

VERDICT FORM C

We, the jury, find for the Defendants, Angela Lawrence and The City of Chicago, and against the Plaintiff, Joseph Otero.

[Signature Lines ]

—————————————————– —————————————————-

(Foreperson)

—————————————————– —————————————————–

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————–

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————–

==========================================================

MADELINE SMITH v. LAWRENCE & CITY

IPI 1.01 – Modified by the court to be read at end of case, and updated by IPI Committee in 2009 to include old IPI 3.01 language)

41.01 Two or More Plaintiffs

As previously stated, the rights of the party plaintiffs, Joseph Otero and Madeline Smith, a minor, by her mother, Angela Otero, are separate and distinct. Each is entitled to a fair consideration of his or her own case and you will decide each plaintiff’s case as if it were a separate lawsuit. Each plaintiff’s case must be governed by the instructions applicable to that case.

Now that you have decided the matter of Joseph Otero v. Angela Lawrence and The City of Chicago, Defendants, you will now return to the jury room to decide the matter of

Madeline Smith, a minor, by her Mother, Angela Otero

[Who I will refer to as Madeline Smith]

vs.

Angela Lawrence and The City of Chicago, Defendants

IPI 1.01 – Modified by the court to be read at end of case, and updated by IPI Committee in 2009 to include old IPI 3.01 language)

I have not meant to indicate any opinion as to the facts of this case by any of my rulings, remarks, or instructions.

The use of cell phones, text messaging, Internet postings and Internet access devices in connection with your deliberations violates the rules of evidence and you are prohibited from using them

You must make your decision based on what you recall of the evidence. You will not receive a written transcript of the testimony when you retire to the jury room.

IPI 2.01 – Evidence Deposition

The testimony of a doctor was presented by the reading of the testimony Dr. Schwartz. You should give this testimony the same consideration you would give it had the witness personally appeared in court.

IPI 3.08 – Opinion Testimony

IPI 3.04 Circumstantial Evidence

evidence.

IPI 50.01 Both Principal and Agent Sued—No Issue as to Agency

IPI 15.01 Proximate Cause—Definition (updated Sept 2009)

When I use the expression “proximate cause,” I mean a cause that, in the natural or ordinary course of events, produced the plaintiff’s injury.

IPI 20.01& 1.02 & 23.01A IPI 3.06/1.02 Pre–Trial Judicial Determination in Favor of Plaintiff 23.01A Admitted Fault Only Modified and Combined Combined – ISSUES – Negligence/ Modified for Admitted Negligence/Admitted Fault Only

The plaintiff, Madeline Smith, claims to have sustained injuries and damages, and that the defendants were negligent.

The Court has found that the defendants were negligent as to Madeline Smith..

However, the plaintiff, Madeline Smith, further claims that defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries and damages.

You need only decide whether that negligence was a proximate cause of injuries to Madeline Smith, and, if so, what amount of money will reasonably and fairly compensate her for those injuries

The defendants deny that any claimed act or omission on the part of the Defendant, Angela Lawrence, was a proximate cause of Madeline Smith’s claimed injuries or damages.

The defendants further deny that the plaintiff, Madeline Smith, was injured or sustained damages to the extent claimed.

IPI 21.01 – BURDEN OF PROOF

21.02 Burden of Proof on the Issues— Admitted Negligence—One Plaintiff and One Defendant—No Contributory Negligence

The plaintiff, Madeline Smith, has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:

First, that Madeline Smith was injured;

Second, that the negligence of the defendants was a proximate cause of the injuries to Madeline Smith.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these propositions has been proved, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff, Madeline Smith.

On the other hand, if you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any of these propositions has not been proved, then your verdict should be for the defendants, Angela Lawrence and the City of Chicago.

IPI 30.01 Measure of Damages

If you decide for the plaintiff on the question of liability, you must then fix the amount of money which will reasonably and fairly compensate the plaintiff for any of the following elements of damages proved by the evidence to have resulted from the negligence of the defendant, taking into consideration the nature, extent and duration of the injury.

The reasonable expense of necessary medical care, treatment

and services received.

The pain and suffering experienced as a result of the injuries;

The loss of a normal life experienced.

30.04.02 Loss of a Normal Life—Definition

Whether any of these elements of damages has been proved by the evidence is for you to determine.

IPI.36.01 In Absence of Liability—No Occasion to Consider Damages

If you decide for the defendant on the question of liability, you will have no occasion to consider the question of damages.

B45.01 – FORMS OF VERDICT – NO COMPARATIVE

When you retire to the jury room you will first select a foreperson. He or she will preside during your deliberations.

Your verdict must be unanimous.

The Plaintiff in this case for your deliberation is: Madeline Smith, a minor, by her Mother, Angela Otero

The Defendants in this case for your deliberations are: Angela Lawrence and The City of Chicago

If you find for the Plaintiff, Madeline Smith, a minor, by her Mother, Angela

Otero, and against the Defendants, Angela Lawrence and The City of Chicago, then you should use Verdict Form A.

If you find for the Defendants, Angela Lawrence and The City of Chicago, against the Plaintiff, Madeline Smith, a minor, by her Mother, Angela Otero then you should use Verdict Form B.

IPI B45.01.A – VERDICT FORM A

VERDICT FORM A

We, the jury, find for the Plaintiff Madeline Smith, a minor, by her Mother, Angela Otero and against the Defendant.

We assess the damages in the sum of $______________________________________, itemized as follows:

Reasonable expense of necessary medical care $_________________

Pain and suffering experienced $_________________

Loss of a normal life experienced. $_________________

[Signature Lines ]

—————————————————– —————————————————-

(Foreperson)

—————————————————– —————————————————–

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————–

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————–

*IPI4501.C

VERDICT FORM B

We, the jury, find for the Defendants, Angela Lawrence and The City of Chicago and against the Plaintiff, Madeline Smith, a minor, by her Mother, Angela Otero.

[Signature Lines ]

—————————————————– —————————————————-

(Foreperson)

—————————————————– —————————————————–

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————–

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————–