City Pothole – Spec Interrogatories
Jury Instructions-IL > Motor Vehicle Accidents > City Pothole – Special Interrogatories with Jury Charge > City Pothole – Spec Interrogatories
Car v City Pothole
Special Interrogatories w/Modified Jury Charge
Sarah Brown vs. City of Chicago, 06 L 637 Verdict for Plaintiff
1.01 Preliminary Cautionary Instructions
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 municipality or an individual, should receive your same fair consideration.
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.
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. Kevin Luke was presented by a videotape of his testimony. You should give this the same consideration you would give it had the witness personally appeared in court.
IPI 3.01 Rulings and Remarks of the Court
Now that the evidence has concluded, I will further instruct you as to the law and your duties. I have not meant to indicate any opinion as to the facts of this case by any of my rulings, remarks, or instructions.
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 3.04 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 10.02 Duty of Care—Defendant
The Plaintiff in this case is: Sarah Brown
The Defendant in this case is: The City of Chicago
It was the duty of the defendant, City of Chicago, who maintained the street in question to exercise ordinary care to see that the street was reasonably safe for the use of those lawfully on the street.
IPI B10.03 Duty of Care Adult Plaintiff—Contributory Negligence
It was the duty of the plaintiff, Sarah Brown, before and at the time of the occurrence, to use ordinary care for her own safety. A plaintiff is contributorily negligent if (1) she fails to use ordinary care for her own safety and (2) her failure to use such ordinary care is a proximate cause of the alleged injury.
The plaintiff’s contributory negligence, if any, which is 50% or less of the total proximate cause of the injury or damage for which recovery is sought, does not bar her recovery. However, the total amount of damages to which she would otherwise be entitled is reduced in proportion to the amount of his negligence. This is known as comparative negligence.
If the 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 15.01 Proximate Cause
When I use the expression “proximate cause,” I mean any cause which, in natural or probable sequence, produced the damages complained of. It need not be the only cause, nor the last or nearest cause. It is sufficient if it concurs with some other cause acting at the same time, which in combination with it, causes the damages.
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 he has the burden of proof is more probably true than not true.
IPI 120.08; 128.02 Issue/Burden of Proof Premises/Condition
Plaintiff, Sarah Brown, seeks to recover damages from the defendant, City of Chicago.
In order to recover damages, the plaintiff has the burden of proving:
First: There was a condition of the street which presented an unreasonable risk
of harm to drivers on the street;
Second: The defendant knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care, should have
known of both the condition and the risk;
Third: The defendant could reasonably expect that drivers of vehicles would not
discover the danger, or realize the danger, or would fail to protect
themselves against such danger;
Fourth: The defendant was negligent in one or more of the following ways:
- Failed to repair the uneven pavement, pothole, or dip in the street at the scene of occurrence; or
- b) Failed to maintain the street at the scene of occurrence in a
reasonably safe manner.
Fifth: The plaintiff was injured; and
Sixth: The defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s
injury.
If you find from your consideration of all of the evidence that any of these six propositions has not been proved, then your verdict shall be for the defendant.
On the other hand if you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these six propositions has been proved, then you must consider the defendant’s claim that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. In order to reduce or deny plaintiff damages, the defendant has the burden of proving each of the following:
First: That plaintiff Sarah Brown failed to exercise ordinary care for her own
safety in that she failed to exercise proper control of her vehicle; and
Second: That plaintiff’s failure to exercise ordinary care was a proximate cause of
plaintiff’s injury.
If you find that the plaintiff, Sarah Brown, has proved all the propositions required of the plaintiff and if you further find that the defendant, City of Chicago, has not proved both propositions required of the defendant, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff, Sarah Brown, and you will not reduce plaintiff’s damages.
If you find that the plaintiff, Sarah Brown, has proved all the propositions required of the plaintiff and that the defendant, City of Chicago, has proved both propositions required of the defendant, and if you find that the plaintiff-Brown’s contributory negligence was 50% or less of the total proximate cause of the injury for which recovery is sought, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff and you will reduce the plaintiff’s damages in the manner stated to you in these instructions.
If you find that the defendant, City of Chicago, has proved both of the propositions required of the defendant, and if you find that the plaintiff-Brown’s contributory negligence was more than 50% of the total proximate cause of the injury for which recovery is sought, then your verdict should be for the defendant, City of Chicago.
IPI 30.01, 30.04, 30.04.01, 30.05, 30.06, Measure of Damages
If you do decide for the plaintiff, Sarah Brown, 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.
The reasonable expense of necessary medical care, treatment, and services received and the present cash value of the reasonable expenses of medical care, treatment and services 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 normal life experienced and reasonably expected to be experienced in the future; or
Disfigurement.
Whether any of these elements of damages has been proved by the evidence is for you to determine.
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.
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 the plaintiff at age 63 years is 20.1 years. This figure is not conclusive. It is the average life expectancy of persons such as the plaintiff who have reached the age of 63. It may be considered by you in connection with other evidence relating to the probable life expectancy of the 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, City of Chicago, on the question of liability, you will have no occasion to consider the question of damages.
FORMS OF VERDICTS
B45.01 Instruction on Use of Verdict Forms—Negligence Only—Single Plaintiff and Defendant MODIFIED FOR SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
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 is: Sarah Brown
The Defendant in this case is: The City of Chicago
If you find for Sarah Brown and against the City of Chicago, and if you further find that Sarah Brown was not contributorily negligent, then you should use Verdict Form A.
If you find for Sarah Brown and against the City of Chicago, and if you
further find that Sarah Brown’s injury was proximately caused by a combination of the City of Chicago’s negligence and Sarah Brown’s contributory negligence and that Sarah Brown’s contributory negligence was 50% or less of the total proximate cause of injury or damages for which recovery is sought, then you should use Verdict Form B.
If you find for the City of Chicago and against Sarah Brown, or if you find that Sarah Brown’s contributory negligence was more than 50% of the total proximate cause of damage for which recovery is sought, then you should use Verdict Form C.
Two Special Interrogatories are supplied with these instructions. They are numbered “Special Interrogatory #1” and “Special Interrogatory #2”.
After you have reached a verdict, fill in and sign both of the Special Interrogatories and return them to the court along with the forms of verdict. These two Special Interrogatories must be signed by each of you.
B45.01.A Verdict Form A—Single Plaintiff and Defendant—No Contributory Negligence Pleaded
VERDICT FORM A
We, the jury, find for the plaintiff Sarah Brown and against the defendant City of
Chicago. We assess the damages in the sum of $ ______________________________,
itemized as follows:
Past pain and suffering $_______________________
Future pain and suffering $_______________________
Loss of normal life $_______________________
Medical care received $_______________________
Future Medical Care $_______________________
Disfigurement $_______________________
[Signature Lines ]
—————————————————– —————————————————-
(Foreperson)
—————————————————– —————————————————–
—————————————————– —————————————————-
—————————————————– —————————————————–
—————————————————– —————————————————-
—————————————————– —————————————————–
B45.01.B Verdict Form B—Single Plaintiff and Defendant—Contributory Negligence—Less Than 50%
VERDICT FORM B
We, the jury, find for the plaintiff, Sarah Brown, and against the defendant, City of Chicago, and further find that:
First: Without taking into consideration the question of reduction of damages due to the negligence of Sarah Brown, we find that the total amount of damages suffered by Plaintiff as a proximate result of the occurrence in question is $____________________, itemized below:
Past pain and suffering $_______________________
Future pain and suffering $_______________________
Loss of normal life $_______________________
Medical care received $_______________________
Future Medical Care $_______________________
Disfigurement $_______________________
Second: Assuming that 100% represents the total combined negligence of all persons whose negligence proximately contributed to the plaintiff’s damages, including Sarah Brown and the City of Chicago, we find that the percentage of such negligence attributable solely to Sarah Brown is ______________________ percent (%).
Third: After reducing the total damages sustained by Sarah Brown by the percentage of negligence attributable solely to Sarah Brown, we assess Plaintiff’s recoverable damages in the sum of $__________________________________.
[Signature Lines ]—————————————————– —————————————————-
(Foreperson)
—————————————————– —————————————————–
—————————————————– —————————————————-
—————————————————– —————————————————–
—————————————————– —————————————————-
—————————————————– —————————————————–
B45.01.C Verdict Form C—Single Plaintiff and Defendant—Contributory Negligence—More Than 50%
VERDICT FORM C
We, the jury, find for the, defendant, City of Chicago and against the plaintiff, Sarah Brown.
[Signature Lines ]—————————————————– —————————————————-
(Foreperson)
—————————————————– —————————————————–
—————————————————– —————————————————-
—————————————————– —————————————————–
—————————————————– —————————————————-
—————————————————– —————————————————–
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY – See IPI 120.08; 128.02 Issue/Burden of Proof Premises/Condition
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY #1
Was there a condition in the street at the scene of occurrence that presented an unreasonable risk of harm to drivers using the street on March 6, 2001?
YES __________ NO ____________-
—————————————————– —————————————————-
(Foreperson)
—————————————————– —————————————————–
—————————————————– —————————————————-
—————————————————– —————————————————–
—————————————————– —————————————————-
—————————————————– —————————————————–
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY – See IPI 120.08; 128.02 Issue/Burden of Proof Premises/Condition
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY #2
Did the City of Chicago know, or in the exercise of ordinary care, should it have known of the existence of both the condition and the risk in the street at the scene of occurrence on or before March 6, 2001?
YES __________ NO ____________
—————————————————– —————————————————-
(Foreperson)
—————————————————– —————————————————–
—————————————————– —————————————————-
—————————————————– —————————————————–
—————————————————– —————————————————-
—————————————————– —————————————————–