Jury Instructions-IL > Motor Vehicle Accidents > Bike vs. Truck ($1.4 Million) & Loss of Consortium ($50k) > Bike v Truck & Consortium

                        Bike v Truck ($1.4 million); Loss of Consortium ($50,000)

Lucyna  Kubisztal-Smith and Danny Smith     v. Suburban General Construction Company, Inc. 07 L 6481 two week trial, two days deliberations w/verdict of $1.4 million to wife-bicyclist and $50,000 to husband for loss of consortium.

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.

            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 Dr. Samuel Chmell and Ms. Dorothy Howlett was presented by the reading of each’s testimony. You should give this testimony the same consideration you would give it had the witness personally appeared in court.

IPI 3.02 Witness Who Has Been Interviewed by Attorney

            An attorney may, if a witness agrees, interview a witness to learn what testimony will be given. Such an interview, by itself, does not reflect adversely on the truth of the testimony of the witness.

IPI 3.03 Insurance

            If you find for the plaintiff, you shall not speculate about or consider any possible sources of benefits the plaintiff may have received or might receive.  After you have returned you verdict, the court will make whatever adjustments are necessary in this regard.       

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 3.08 – Opinion Testimony

            You have heard witnesses 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 41.01 Two or More Plaintiffs [COMBINED W/ 50.01]

The Plaintiffs in this case are:             Lucyna Kubisztal Smith and Danny Smith

The Defendant in this case is:             Suburban General Construction Company, Inc.

            The rights of the plaintiffs, Lucyna Kubisztal Smith and Danny Smith, are separate and distinct. Each is entitled to a fair consideration of their 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.

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

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

            The plaintiff’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 the plaintiff would otherwise be entitled is reduced in proportion to the amount of her negligence. This is known as comparative negligence.

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

IPI 10.04 Duty to Use Ordinary Care—Adult—Defendant

            It was the duty of the defendant, before and at the time of the occurrence, to use ordinary care for the safety of the plaintiff, Lucyna Kubisztal Smith. That means it was the duty of the defendant to be free from negligence.

IPI  15.01 – Proximate Cause

When I use the expression “proximate cause,” I mean a  cause which, in natural or probable course of events, produced the injury complained of. It need not be the only cause, nor the last or nearest cause. It is sufficient if it combines with another cause resulting in the injury.

IPI 20.01 – ISSUES – Negligence

The plaintiff claims to have sustained injuries, and that the defendant was negligent in one or more of the following respects:

     Failed to keep a proper lookout;

     Failed to obey  traffic control devices;

     Failed to yield the right-of-way to the plaintiff in the crosswalk;

     Failed to avoid colliding with plaintiff in crosswalk;

     Failed to make a proper right turn on red light; or

     Failed to sound horn when necessary.

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

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

     The defendant further denies that the plaintiffs were injured or sustained damages to the extent claimed.

                                                *  *  *  *

The defendant claims that the plaintiff, Lucyna Kubisztal Smith, was contributorily negligent in one or more of the following respects:

     Failed to keep a proper lookout;

     Failed to obey  traffic control devices;

     Failed to yield the right-of-way to the defendant;

     Failed to remain on the curb or other place of safety and moved into the path of a vehicle; or

     Failed to exercise due care in crossing the street.

      The defendant  further claims that one or more of the foregoing was a proximate cause of Lucyna Kubisztal Smith’s injuries.

     The plaintiffs deny doing any of the things claimed by defendant, deny negligence in doing any of the things claimed by defendant, and denies that any claimed act or omission by the Plaintiff, Lucyna Kubisztal Smith, 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 plaintiffs have the burden of proving each of the following propositions:

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

Second, that the plaintiffs suffered injuries;

Third, that the negligence of the defendant was a proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ 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 defendant.

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 defendant’s claim that the plaintiff, Lucyna Kubisztal Smith, was contributorily negligent.

As to that claim, the defendant has the burden of proving both of the following propositions:

First, that the plaintiff, Lucyna Kubisztal Smith, acted or failed to act in one of the ways claimed by the defendant 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 plaintiffs have proved all the propositions required of the plaintiffs, and that the defendant has not proved both of the propositions required of the defendant, then your verdict should be for the plaintiffs and you will not reduce plaintiffs’ damages.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the plaintiffs have proved all the propositions required of the plaintiffs, and that the defendant has proved both of the propositions required of the defendant, and if you find that Lucyna Kubisztal Smith’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 the plaintiffs,  and you will reduce the plaintiffs’ damages in the manner stated to you in these instructions.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the defendant has proved both the propositions required of the defendant and if you find that Lucyna Kubisztal Smith’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 defendant.

IPI 41.02 Assess Plaintiffs’ Damages Separately

            If you find that both plaintiffs are entitled to recover, you will assess the damages of each separately and return a verdict in a separate amount for each.

IPI 30.01  et seq/30.04.02/30.21  Measure of Damages

            If you decide for the plaintiff, Lucyna Kubisztal Smith, on the question of liability, you must then fix the amount of money which will reasonably and fairly compensate her 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 disfigurement resulting from the injury.

The reasonable expense of necessary medical care, treatment and services received and reasonably certain to be received in the future.

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 experienced

in the future as a result of the injures.

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.

           The present cash value of  earnings reasonably certain to be lost in the future.                                                   

IPI 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.

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

IPI 32.01 et seq Measure of Damages for Loss of Consortium

            If you decide for the plaintiff, Lucyna Kubisztal Smith, on the question of liability, you must then fix the amount of money which will reasonably and fairly compensate her husband, Danny Smith, for any of the following elements of damages proved by the evidence to have resulted from the negligence of the defendant.

            The reasonable value of the services of his wife of which he has been deprived and the present cash value of the services of his wife of which he is reasonably certain to be deprived in the future.

            The reasonable value of the society, companionship and sexual relationship with his wife of which he has been deprived and the society, companionship and sexual relationship with his wife of which he is reasonably certain to be deprived in the future.

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

IPI 34.01 Damages Arising in the Future—Extent and Amount

            If you find that a Plaintiff  is entitled to damages arising in the future because of injuries, or because of loss of earnings, or because of  future medical expenses, or  because of loss of society, loss of companionship and sexual relations,  you must determine the amount of these damages which will arise in the future. If these damages are permanent in nature, then in computing these damages you may consider how long the plaintiff is likely to live.

            With respect to a loss of future earnings, you may consider that some persons work all their lives and others do not; that a person’s earnings may remain the same or may increase or decrease in the future.

IPI 34.02 Damages Arising in the Future—Discount to Present Cash Value

            In computing the damages arising in the future because of future medical  expenses or because of the loss of future earnings, you must determine their present cash value. “Present cash value” means the sum of money needed now, which, when added to what that sum may reasonably be expected to earn in the future, will equal the amount of the expenses and earnings at the time in the future when the expenses must be paid or the earnings would have been received.

            Damages for pain and suffering, loss of normal life, disfigurement, loss of society, companionship and sexual relations are not reduced to present cash value.

IPI 34.04 Damages Arising in the Future—Mortality Tables as Evidence of Damages—Injury Case

            According to a table of mortality in evidence, the life expectancy of a white female aged 54 is 29.1 years. This figure is  not conclusive. It is the average life expectancy of persons who have reached the age of 54. It may be considered by you in connection with other evidence relating to the probable life expectancy of a Plaintiff in this case, including evidence of his occupation, health, habits, and other activities, bearing in mind that some persons live longer and some persons less than the average.

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.

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 Plaintiffs in this case are:             Lucyna Kubisztal Smith and Danny Smith

The Defendant in this case is:             Suburban General Construction Company, Inc.

As to the plaintiff, Lucyna Kubisztal Smith’s claim:

If you find for Plaintiff- Lucyna Kubisztal Smith and against the Defendant and if you further find that Plaintiff-Lucyna Kubisztal Smith was not contributorily negligent, then you should use Verdict Form A.

If you find for Plaintiff-Lucyna Kubisztal Smith and against the Defendant, and if you further find that Plaintiff-Lucyna Kubisztal Smith’s injuries were proximately caused by a combination of Defendant’s negligence and Lucyna Kubisztal Smith’s contributory negligence, and that her 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 Defendant and against the Plaintiff-Lucyna Kubisztal Smith, or if you find that Plaintiff Lucyna Kubisztal Smith’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.

As to the plaintiff, Danny Smith’s Claim:

If you find for Plaintiff-Danny Smith and against the Defendant and if you further find that Plaintiff-Lucyna Kubisztal Smith was not contributorily negligent, then you should use Verdict Form D.

If you find for Plaintiff-Danny Smith and against the Defendant, and if you further find that Plaintiff’s damages were proximately caused by a combination of Defendant’s negligence and the Plaintiff-Lucyna Kubisztal Smith’s contributory negligence, and that her contributory negligence was 50% or less of the total proximate cause of damages for which recovery is sought, then you should use Verdict Form E.

If you find for Defendant and against the Plaintiff-Danny Smith, or if you find that Plaintiff Lucyna Kubisztal Smith’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 E.

IPI B45.01.A – VERDICT FORM A

VERDICT FORM A

We, the jury, find for the Plaintiff-Lucyna Kubisztal Smith and against the Defendant-

Suburban General Construction Company, Inc. We assess the damages in the sum of 

$_____________________________________________, itemized as follows:

   Disfigurement.                                                                                 $_________________

   The reasonable expense of necessary medical care, treatment and

   services received.                                                                             $_________________

   The reasonable expense of necessary medical care, treatment and

   services reasonably certain to be received in the future.                  $_________________

   The pain and suffering experienced .                                               $_________________

   The pain and suffering reasonably certain to be  experienced in the

   future as a result of the injuries.                                                       $_________________

   The loss of a normal life experienced.                                             $_________________

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

   the future as a result of the injures.                                                 $_________________

   The present cash value of  earnings reasonably certain to be lost in

   the future.                                                                                        $_________________

[Signature Lines ]

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

(Foreperson)

—————————————————–      —————————————————–

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

—————————————————–      —————————————————–

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

—————————————————–      —————————————————–

B45.01.B Verdict Form B- COMPARATIVE

VERDICT FORM B

We, the jury, find for the Plaintiff-Lucyna Kubisztal Smith and against the Defendant-

Suburban General Construction Company, Inc. We assess the damages in the sum of 

$__________________________________________, itemized as follows:

   Disfigurement.                                                                                       $_________________

   The reasonable expense of necessary medical care, treatment and

   services received.                                                                             $_________________

   The reasonable expense of necessary medical care, treatment and

   services reasonably certain to be received in the future.                  $_________________

   The pain and suffering experienced .                                               $_________________

   The pain and suffering reasonably certain to be  experienced in the

   future as a result of the injuries.                                                       $_________________

   The loss of a normal life experienced.                                             $_________________

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

   the future as a result of the injures.                                                 $_________________

   The present cash value earnings reasonably certain to be lost in

   the future.                                                                                        $_________________

We further find the following:

            First: Without taking into consideration the question

of reduction of damages due to the negligence of the Plaintiff-Lucyna

Kubisztal Smith, we find that the total amount of damages suffered

by Plaintiff-Lucyna Kubisztal Smith 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-Lucyna Kubisztal

Smith and the Defendant, we find that the percentage of such negli-

gence attributable solely to Plaintiff-Lucyna Kubisztal Smith is          ______ percent(%)

            Third: After reducing the total damages sustained by Plaintiff-

Lucyna Kubisztal Smith by the percentage of negligence attributable

solely to Plaintiff-Lucyna Kubisztal Smith, we assess Plaintiff-Lucyna

Kubisztal Smith’s recoverable damages in the sum of                        $________________.

[Signature Lines ]

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

(Foreperson)

—————————————————–      —————————————————–

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

—————————————————–      —————————————————–

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

—————————————————–      —————————————————–

IPI4501.C

VERDICT FORM C

We, the jury, find for the Defendant Suburban General Construction Company, Inc  and against Plaintiff-Lucyna Kubisztal Smith.

[Signature Lines ]

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

(Foreperson)

—————————————————–      —————————————————–

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

—————————————————–      —————————————————–

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

—————————————————–      —————————————————–

IPI B45.01.A – VERDICT FORM A

VERDICT FORM D

We, the jury, find for the Plaintiff-Danny Smith and against the Defendant-Suburban General

Construction Company, Inc. We assess the damages in the sum of 

$__________________________________________________, itemized as follows:

     The reasonable value of the services of his wife of which he

     has been deprived.                                                                                     $_________________

     The present cash value of the services of his wife of

     which he is reasonably certain to be deprived in the future.        $_________________

     The reasonable value of the society, companionship and sexual

     relationship with his wife of which he has been deprived.           $_________________

     The society, companionship and sexual  relationship with his wife

     of which he is reasonably certain to be deprived in the future.    $_________________

[Signature Lines ]

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

(Foreperson)

—————————————————–      —————————————————–

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

—————————————————–      —————————————————–

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

—————————————————–      —————————————————–

B45.01.B Verdict Form B- COMPARATIVE

VERDICT FORM E

We, the jury, find for the Plaintiff-Danny Smith and against the Defendant-Suburban General

Construction Company, Inc. We assess the  damages in the sum of 

$__________________________________________, itemized as follows:

     The reasonable value of the services of his wife of which he has

     been deprived.                                                                              $_________________

     The present cash value of the services of his wife of

     which he is reasonably certain to be deprived in the future.         $_________________

     The reasonable value of the society, companionship and sexual

     relationship with his wife of which he has been deprived.           $_________________

     The society, companionship and sexual  relationship with his wife

     of which he is reasonably certain to be deprived in the future.    $_________________

We further find the following:

            First: Without taking into consideration the question of

reduction of damages due to the negligence of the Plaintiff-Lucyna

Kubisztal Smith, we find that the total amount of damages suffered by

Plaintiff-Danny Smith as a proximate result of 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-Lucyna Kubisztal

Smith and the Defendant, we find that the percentage of such negli-

gence attributable solely to Plaintiff-Lucyna Kubisztal Plaintiff is   ________ percent(%)

            Third: After reducing the total damages sustained by

Plaintiff-Danny Smith by the percentage of negligence attributable

solely to the Plaintiff-Lucyna Kubisztal, we assess

Plaintiff-Danny Smith’s recoverable damages in the sum of                                                                                                                                                             $________________.

[Signature Lines ]

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

(Foreperson)

—————————————————–      —————————————————–

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

—————————————————–      —————————————————–

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

—————————————————–      —————————————————–

IPI4501.C

VERDICT FORM F

We, the jury, find for the Defendant-Suburban General Construction Company, Inc and against Plaintiff-Danny Smith.

[Signature Lines ]

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

(Foreperson)

—————————————————–      —————————————————–

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

—————————————————–      —————————————————–

—————————————————–   —————————————————-

—————————————————–      —————————————————–