All Purpose Auto – Property Damage
Jury Instructions-IL > Motor Vehicle Accidents > All Purpose Auto – Property Damage
ALL PURPOSE AUTO ACCIDENT (complete set) – PROPERTY DAMAGE
Non-IPI Subrogation Instructions, Negligence, Admitted-Directed Negligence, Agency, Corporate Party, Exemplars of allegations and code violations and Non-IPI/Paid Bills
[*Indicates Universal Use in Most Cases **Denotes Contributory Negligence]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 ________________________ or (i.e., corporation, partnership, etc.) 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 1.02 Pre–Trial Judicial Determination in Favor of Plaintiff/Modified [ ]
The Court has found the defendant was [negligent] [liable], so that is not an issue you will need to decide. [There are other issues you will need to decide in this case.]
IPI 1.03A Admitted Fault Only
The defendant has admitted [he][she][it] was negligent. There are other issues you will need to decide in this case.
IPI 1.03B Admitted Fault and Causation
The defendant has admitted [he][she][it] was negligent. The defendant has also admitted that such negligence was a proximate cause of damages to the plaintiff. There are other issues you will need to decide in this case.
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.
3.03 Insurance
Whether a party is insured has no bearing whatever on any issue that you must decide. You must refrain from any inference, speculation, or discussion about 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.
A fact may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence consists of the proof of facts or circumstances which leads to a reasonable inference of the existence of other facts sought to be established.
IPI 3.06 Directed Finding
The court has determined that _______ is [negligent] [liable]. This is not an issue you will need to decide. [The remaining parties are not to be prejudiced by this finding.]
IPI 3.07 General Limiting Instruction
Evidence that was received for a limited purpose or limited to one party should not be considered for any other purpose or as to any other party.
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 5.01 Failure to Produce Witness [or Evidence]
If a party to this case has failed to produce a witness within its power to produce, you may infer that the testimony of the witness would be adverse to that party if you believe each of the following elements:
- The witness was under the control of the party and could have been produced by the exercise of reasonable diligence.
- The witness was not equally available to an adverse party.
- A reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances would have produced the witness if he believed the testimony would be favorable to him.
- No reasonable excuse for the failure has been shown.
*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 “HIS” Duty of Care Adult Plaintiff—Contributory Negligence
It was the duty of the plaintiff, before and at the time of the occurrence, to use ordinary care for his own safety and the safety of his own property. A plaintiff is contributorily negligent if (1) he failed to use ordinary care for his own safety and for the safety of Plaintiff’s property and (2) such failure to use such ordinary care is a proximate cause of the alleged damages.
The plaintiff’s contributory negligence, if any, which is 50% or less of the total proximate cause of damages 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 his negligence. This is known as comparative negligence.
If the plaintiff’s contributory negligence is more than 50% of the total proximate cause of damages for which recovery is sought, the defendant shall be found not liable.
[The term “plaintiff” includes a counterplaintiff.]
**IPI B10.03 “HER” Duty of Care Adult Plaintiff—Contributory Negligence
It was the duty of the plaintiff, before and at the time of the occurrence, to use ordinary care for her own safety and the safety of her own property. A plaintiff is contributorily negligent if (1) she failed to use ordinary care for her own safety and for the safety of Plaintiff’s property and (2) such failure to use such ordinary care is a proximate cause of the alleged damages.
The plaintiff’s contributory negligence, if any, which is 50% or less of the total proximate cause of damages 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 the plaintiff’s contributory negligence is more than 50% of the total proximate cause of damages for which recovery is sought, the defendant shall be found not liable. [The term “plaintiff” includes a counterplaintiff.]
*IPI 10.04 Duty to Use Ordinary Care—Adult—Defendant
The Plaintiff in this case is:
The Defendants in this case are:
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 and the plaintiff’s property. That means it was the duty of the defendant to be free from negligence.
IPI 11.01 Contributory Negligence—Adult—Definition [Modified for subrogation case]
When I use the expression “contributory negligence,” I mean negligence on the part of the plaintiff [State Farm, or its insured, Laura Culberg,] that proximately contributed to cause the property damage.
IPI 11.04 Parent’s Negligence Not an Issue
Contributory negligence of the parent(s) is not an issue in this case.
IPI 12.04 Concurrent Negligence Other Than Defendant’s
More than one person may be to blame for causing damages. If you decide that the defendant was negligent and that [his][her][its] negligence was a proximate cause of damages to the plaintiff, it is not a defense that some third person who is not a party to the suit may also have been to blame.
[However, if you decide that the sole proximate cause of damages to the plaintiff was the conduct of some person other than the defendant, then your verdict should be for the defendant.]
IPI 12.05 Negligence—Intervention of Outside Agency
If you decide that the defendant was negligent and that such negligence was a proximate cause of damages to the plaintiff, it is not a defense that something else may also have been a cause of damages.
[However, if you decide that the sole proximate cause of damages to the plaintiff was something other than the conduct of the defendant, then your verdict should be for the defendant.]
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. [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 damages, and that the defendant was negligent in one or more of the following respects:
Failed to keep a proper lookout; or
Failed to reduce speed to avoid an accident; or
[Failed to stop or slow when danger was imminent; or]Drove vehicle at a speed that was too fast for traffic conditions
Followed a motor vehicle too closely; or
Failed to obey traffic control devices; or
Failed to yield the right-of-way while exiting a private driveway; or
Failed to yield the right-of-way to oncoming traffic while making a left turn at an intersection;
Failed to maintain proper lane usage, or made a lane change
when is was unsafe to do so;
The plaintiff further claims that one or more of the foregoing was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s damages.
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 damages.
**The defendant claims that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in one or more of the following respects:
Failed to keep a proper lookout; or
Failed to reduce speed to avoid an accident; or
[Failed to stop or slow when danger was imminent; or]Drove vehicle at a speed that was too fast for traffic conditions
Followed a motor vehicle too closely; or
Failed to obey traffic control devices; or
Failed to yield the right-of-way while exiting a private driveway; or
Failed to yield the right-of-way to oncoming traffic while making a left turn at an intersection;
The defendant further claims that one or more of the foregoing was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages.
The defendant further denies that the plaintiff sustained damages to the extent claimed.
The plaintiff denies doing any of the things claimed by defendant, denies
negligence in doing any of the things claimed by defendant, and denies that any claimed act or omission by the Plaintiff was a proximate cause of the claimed damages.
IPI 20.01& 1.02 & 23.01A Combined – ISSUES – ADMITTED Negligence/ Modified for Admitted Negligence/Admitted Fault Only
The Plaintiff in this case is:
The Defendant in this case is:
The plaintiff claims to have sustained injuries and damages, and that the defendant, was negligent.
The defendant has admitted he was negligent, so that it not an issue you will need to decide.
However, the plaintiff further claims that defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
You need only decide whether the defendant’s admitted negligence was a proximate cause of injuries to the plaintiff, and, if so, what amount of money will reasonably and fairly compensate the plaintiff for those injuries.
The defendant denies that any claimed act or omission on the part of the defendant was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s claimed injuries or damages.
The defendant further denies that the plaintiff was injured or sustained damages to the extent claimed.
IPI 20.02 ISSUES/Negligence—Counterclaims w/multiple defendants
Each party to this suit claims to be entitled to damages from the other: the plaintiff, under his/her complaint, and the defendant under his/her counterclaim.
The plaintiff claims to have sustained damages, and that the defendant was negligent in one or more of the following respects:
Failed to keep a proper lookout;
Failed to reduce speed to avoid an accident;
[Failed to stop or slow when danger was imminent;]Drove vehicle at a speed that was too fast for traffic conditions
Followed a motor vehicle too closely;
Failed to obey traffic control devices;
Failed to yield the right-of-way while exiting a private driveway;
Failed to yield the right-of-way to oncoming traffic while making a left turn at an intersection;
The plaintiff further claims that one or more of the foregoing was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s damages.
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 damages.
The DEFENDANT CLAIMS that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in one or more of the following respects:
Failed to keep a proper lookout;
Failed to reduce speed to avoid an accident;
[Failed to stop or slow when danger was imminent;]Drove vehicle at a speed that was too fast for traffic conditions
Followed a motor vehicle too closely;
Failed to obey traffic control devices;
Failed to yield the right-of-way while exiting a private driveway;
Failed to yield the right-of-way to oncoming traffic while making a left turn at an intersection;
The defendant further claims that one or more of the foregoing was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages.
The plaintiff denies doing any of the things claimed by defendant, denies negligence in doing any of the things claimed by defendant,, and denies that any claimed act or omission by the Plaintiff was a proximate cause of the claimed damages.
[The defendant also sets up the following affirmative defenses:Defendant claims…]
The plaintiff denies that [summarize affirmative defense].
The defendant further denies that the plaintiff sustained damages to the extent claimed.
The defendant counterclaims that he sustained damage, and that the plaintiff was negligent in one or more of the ways previously mentioned, and that Defendant D was negligent in one or more of the following ways:
Failed to keep a proper lookout;
Failed to reduce speed to avoid an accident;
[Failed to stop or slow when danger was imminent;]Drove vehicle at a speed that was too fast for traffic conditions
Followed a motor vehicle too closely;
Failed to obey traffic control devices;
Failed to yield the right-of-way while exiting a private driveway;
Failed to yield the right-of-way to oncoming traffic while making a left turn at an intersection
The plaintiff and Defendant D each deny that they did any of the things claimed in the counterclaim, that they were negligent in doing or omitting to do any of the things claimed in the counterclaim, and claim that defendant’s[Defendant C’s] damage was proximately caused [solely] by the negligence of [defendant] [Defendant C].
The plaintiff claims that defendant [Defendant C] was contributorily negligent [in one or more of the following respects:]
Failed to keep a proper lookout;
Failed to reduce speed to avoid an accident;
[Failed to stop or slow when danger was imminent;]Drove vehicle at a speed that was too fast for traffic conditions
Followed a motor vehicle too closely;
Failed to obey traffic control devices;
Failed to yield the right-of-way while exiting a private driveway;
Failed to yield the right-of-way to oncoming traffic while making a left turn at an intersection;
Followed the vehicle operated by Plaintiff too closely;
Failed to decrease the speed of his vehicle in order to avoid a collision with Plaintiff;
Operated his vehicle at an unreasonable speed in light of existing traffic conditions
The plaintiff further claims that one or more of the foregoing was a proximate cause of defendant’s [Defendant C’s] damages.
The defendant [Defendant C] denies doing any of the things claimed by the plaintiff, denies any 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 damages.
The plaintiff and Defendant D further setup the following affirmative defense(s):
The plaintiff (Defendant D) claim
(Summarize in simple form and without undue emphasis or repetition any affirmative defenses alleged in the answer to the counterclaim that are supported by the evidence ).]
The defendant(s) (Defendant C) deny that (summarize affirmative defense).]
The plaintiff and Defendant D each deny that [Defendant C] sustained damages to the extent claimed.
*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 21.02 – BURDEN – NO COMPARATIVE
The plaintiff has 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 plaintiff suffered damages;
Third, that the negligence of the defendant was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages;
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.
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 defendant.
**IPI B21.02 BURDEN – COMPARATIVE
The plaintiff has 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 plaintiff suffered damages;
Third, that the negligence of the defendant was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages;
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 was contributorily negligent.
As to that claim, the defendant has the burden of proving both of the following propositions:
First, that the plaintiff 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 damages.
If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the plaintiff has proved all the propositions required of the plaintiff, and that the defendant has not proved both of the propositions required of the defendant, then your verdict should be for the Plaintiff and you will not reduce plaintiff’s damages.
If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the plaintiff has proved all the propositions required of the plaintiff, and that the defendant has proved both of the propositions required of the defendant, and if you find that the plaintiff’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 plaintiff, 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 Defendant has proved both the propositions required of the Defendant and if you find that the plaintiff’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.
21.02 Burden of Proof on the Issues— Admitted Negligence—One Plaintiff and One Defendant—No Contributory Negligence
The plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:
First, that the plaintiff sustained damages;
Second, that the negligence of the defendant was a proximate cause of damages to the plaintiff.
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. 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 defendant.
[See also IPI 100 series of Admitted or Directed Fault, above]
23.01A Admitted Fault Only
The defendant admits that he was negligent. [MODIFIED Court has found that the defendant was negligent] You need only decide whether that negligence was a proximate cause of damages to the plaintiff, and, if so, what amount of money will reasonably and fairly compensate the plaintiff for those damages.
*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.
The reasonable expense of necessary medical care, treatment and services received.
The damage to property, determined by the reasonable expense of necessary repairs to the property which was damaged.
The damage to property, determined by the lesser of
- the reasonable expense of necessary repairs to the property, or
- the difference between the fair market value of the property immediately before the occurrence and its fair market value immediately after the occurrence
The reasonable rental value of similar property for the time reasonablyrequired for the repair or replacement of the property damaged.
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.
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:
The defendant in this case is:
If you find for the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, then you should use Verdict Form A.
If you find for the Defendant and against the Plaintiff, then you should use Verdict Form B.
IPI 50.01 Both Principal and Agent Sued—No Issue as to Agency
The defendants are sued as principal and agent. The defendant [PRINCIPAL’S NAME] is the principal and the defendant [AGENT’S NAME] is his/her agent. If you find that the defendant [AGENT’S NAME] is liable, then you must find that the defendant [PRINCIPAL’S NAME] is also liable. However, if you find that [AGENT’S NAME] is not liable, then you must find that [PRINCIPAL’S NAME] is not liable.
50.03 Both Principal and Agent Sued—Agency Denied—Principal Sued Under Respondeat Superior Only
Defendant [PRINCIPAL’S NAME d/b/a ] is sued as the principal and the defendant [AGENT’S NAME] as his agent. It is denied that any agency existed.
If you find that the defendant [AGENT’S NAME] was the agent of the defendant [PRINCIPAL’S NAME d/b/a] at the time of the occurrence, and if you find that [AGENT’S NAME] is liable, then both are liable.
If you find that [AGENT’S NAME] is not liable, then neither defendant is liable.
If you find that the defendant [AGENT’S NAME ] is liable but was not acting as an agent of the defendant [PRINCIPAL’S NAME d/b/a] at the time of the occurrence, then the defendant [PRINCIPAL’S NAME d/b/a ] is not liable.
50.05 Agent—Definition
An agent is a person who, by agreement with another called the principal, represents the principal in dealings with third persons or transacts business, manages some affair or does some service for the principal, with or without compensation. The agreement may be oral or written, exp*ress or implied.
[If you find that one person has the right to control the actions of another at a given time, you may find that the relation of principal and agent exists, even though the right to control may not have been exercised.]
IPI 50.07 Inference of Agency—Agency and Scope of Employment Inferred From Ownership of Automobile
If you decide that the automobile being driven by [DRIVER’S NAME] was owned by the defendant, you may infer from such evidence that [DRIVER’S NAME] was acting as the agent of the owner and within the scope of his/her authority, unless you find that inference is overcome by other believable evidence. You may consider that inference [and any other evidence in the case] in deciding whether [DRIVER’S NAME] was acting as agent and within the scope of his/her authority as the defendant’s agent.
IPI 50.08 Inference of Agency—Ownership of Automobile and Employment or Agency Admitted, But Scope of Authority Denied
At the time of the occurrence, the automobile being driven by [DRIVER’S NAME] was owned by the defendant, and [DRIVER’S NAME] was the employee of the defendant. You may infer from this fact that [DRIVER’S NAME] was acting within the scope of his/her authority, unless you decide that the inference is overcome by other believable evidence. You may consider this inference [and any other evidence in the case] in deciding whether [DRIVER’S NAME] was acting in the scope of his/her authority as the defendant’s agent.
50.10 Agent or Independent Contractor
The question has been raised whether at the time of the occurrence [AGENT’S NAME]
was the agent of the defendant [ d/b/a] or was an independent contractor. An agent is a person who by agreement with another, called the principal, represents the principal in dealings with third persons or transacts some other business, manages some affair, or does some service for the principal, with or without compensation. The agreement may be oral or written, express or implied. [The term “agent” is broader than either “servant” or “employee.” A servant or employee is an agent, but one may be an agent although he is neither servant nor employee.]
[If you find that one person has the right to control the actions of another at a given time, you may find that the relation of principal and agent exists, even though the right to control may not have been exercised.]
An independent contractor is one who undertakes a specific job where the person who engages him does not have the right [to discharge him] [or] [to direct and control the method and manner of doing the work].
In determining whether at the time of the occurrence [AGENT’S NAME] was the agent of the defendant [PRINCIPAL’S NAME d/b/a] or was an independent contractor, you may also consider the method of payment; the right to discharge; the skill required in the work to be done; who provides tools, materials or equipment; whether the worker’s occupation is related to that of the employer; whether the employer deducted for withholding tax; and [_________________] other relevant factor(s).
The principal is liable to third persons for the negligence of his agent in the transaction of the business of the principal, if the agent himself is liable. But one who engages an independent contractor is not liable to others for the negligence of the contractor.
50.11 A Corporation Acts Through Its Employees
The [(plaintiff) (defendant) is a corporation] [the parties are corporations] and can act only through [its] [their] officers and employees. Any act or omission of an officer or employee within the scope of his employment is the action or omission of the [plaintiff] [defendant] corporation.
*IPI 60.01 & 70.03 Violation of Statute, Ordinance, or Administrative Regulation and Pedestrians—Crossing At Other Than Crosswalks [see exemplars below]
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 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.
If you find for Plaintiff and against the Defendant and if you further find that Plaintiff was not contributorily negligent, then you should use Verdict Form A.
If you find for Plaintiff 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’s contributory negligence, and that Plaintiff’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 Defendant and against the Plaintiff, or if you find that Plaintiff’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 and against the Defendant. We assess the damages
in the sum of $____________________, itemized as follows:
The Damage To Property $____________________
The Reasonable Rental Value $_____________________
[Signature Lines ]—————————————————– —————————————————-
(Foreperson)
—————————————————– —————————————————–
—————————————————– —————————————————-
—————————————————– —————————————————–
—————————————————– —————————————————-
—————————————————– —————————————————–
**B45.01.B Verdict Form B- COMPARATIVE
VERDICT FORM B
We, the jury, find for the Plaintiff and against the Defendant. We assess the damages
in the sum of $____________________, itemized as follows:
The Damage To Property $____________________
The Reasonable Rental Value $_____________________
We further find the following:
First: Without taking into consideration the question
of reduction of damages due to the negligence of the Plaintiff,
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 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 Plaintiff’s recoverable damages in the sum of $________________.
==============
[Signature Lines ]—————————————————– —————————————————-
(Foreperson)
—————————————————– —————————————————–
—————————————————– —————————————————-
—————————————————– —————————————————–
—————————————————– —————————————————-
—————————————————– —————————————————–
*IPI4501.C
VERDICT FORM C
We, the jury, find for the Defendant and against the Plaintiff.
[Signature Lines ]—————————————————– —————————————————-
(Foreperson)
—————————————————– —————————————————–
—————————————————– —————————————————-
—————————————————– —————————————————–
—————————————————– —————————————————-
—————————————————– —————————————————–
*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:
Speed must be decreased as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any
person or vehicle on the highway;
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. The fact that the speed of a vehicle does not exceed the applicable maximum speed limit does not relieve the driver from the duty to decrease speed when approaching and crossing an intersection.
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. The fact that the speed of a vehicle does not exceed the applicable maximum speed limit does not relieve the driver from the duty to decrease speed when approaching and crossing an intersection, approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, or when special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather of highway conditions. Speed must be decreased as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person or vehicle on the highway.
No person may stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle without first giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this Chapter to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the rear when there is opportunity to give such a signal.
A signal of intention to turn right or left when required must be given continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning within a business or residence district. No person may stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle without first giving an appropriate signal to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the rear when there is an opportunity to give such a signal.
The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon the highway.
The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left within an intersection shall yield the right of way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazards, but said driver, having so yielded may proceed at such time as safe interval occurs.
The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left within an intersection shall yield the right of way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard, but said driver, having so yielded and having given a signal when and as required, may make such left turn and the drivers of all other vehicles approaching the intersection from said opposite direction shall yield the right of way to the vehicle making the left turn. 9-16-020(d)
Vehicular traffic facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal is thereby warned that the related green movement is being terminated or that a red indication will be exhibited immediately thereafter when vehicular traffic shall not enter the intersection. 9-8-020
Vehicular traffic facing a circular green signal may proceed straight through or turn right or left. Vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall yield the right of way to other vehicles lawfully within the intersection at the time such signal is exhibited.
Vehicular traffic facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop before entering the intersection, and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown.
Vehicular traffic facing a steady circular yellow signal is warned that the related green movement is being terminated or that a red indication will be exhibited immediately thereafter.
A driver of a vehicle about to enter or cross a highway from an alley, building private road or driveway shall yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching on the highway to be entered.
No person shall start a vehicle which is stopped, standing, or parked unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety. [9-40-190]
. Speed must be decreased as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any
person or vehicle on the highway;
Vehicular traffic facing a green arrow signal, shown alone or in combination with another indication, may cautiously enter the intersection only to make the movement indicated by such arrow, or such other movement as is permitted by other indications shown at the same time. Such vehicular traffic shall yield the right of way to … other traffic lawfully using the intersection.
The driver of a vehicle intending to turn at an intersection shall execute an approach
or execution of a right turn as close as practical to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
No person may turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety. No person may so turn any vehicle without giving an appropriate signal.
Whenever any roadway has been divided into 2 or more clearly marked lanes for traffic, a vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within the single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety
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.
Non-Standard IPI Subrogee Reimburses Deductible*
[ 215 ILCS 5/143b 735 ILCS 5/2-619]
Any insurance carrier whose payment to its insured is reduced by a deductible is subrogated to its insured’s entire collision loss claim including the deductible amount,. The insurance carrier shall pay the deductible share to its insured out of the recovery on the subrogated claim.
Non-Standard IPI Subrogee Reimburses Deductible*
[ 215 ILCS 5/143b 735 ILCS 5/2-619]
Any deductible share recovered by an insurance carrier shall be paid to its insured out of the recovery on the subrogated claim.
————
[—*Judge’s Modification of language in MOREL v. CORONET, 138 Ill. App. 3d 963; 487 N.E.2d 66; 93 Ill. Dec. 622 (1st Dist 1985): “Any Insurance carrier whose payment to its insured is reduced by a deductible is subrogated to its insured’s entire collision loss claim including the deductible amount. The insurance carrier shall pay the deductible share to its insured out of the recovery of the subrogated claim.”]
Non-Standard IPI Subrogation Defined* 735 ILCS 5/2-404C
“Subrogation” is a legal term that means that an insurance company is “subrogated” to take over the rights of the insured person for the purpose of recovering any payments made on the insured’s loss.
In this case the Insurance Company is the subrogee and driver/owner of the vehicle is the subrogor. As the subrogee for the driver/owner of the vehicle, the Insurance Company may bring suit against a person who they claim to be legally responsible for the loss. In this case they have brought suit against the Defendant.
The rights the Insurance Company , as subrogee, as against the defendant are no greater and no less than those which the driver/owner of the vehicle would have against the defendant.
——————-
[—*Judge’s Modification based upon Ewanic v. Pepper Construction, 305 Ill. App. 3d 564, 712 N.E.2d 852, 238 Ill. Dec. 748 (1ST – 1999) Rule 23 Opinion: Excerpts:]
“The court also rejected Moran’s request to identify the insurers as the real parties in interest in jury instructions. Under section 2-403(c) of the Civil Practice Law:
“Any action hereafter brought by virtue of the subrogation provision of any contract or by virtue of subrogation by operation of law shall be brought either in the name or for the use of the subrogee; and the subrogee shall in his or her pleading on oath * * * allege that he or she is the actual bona fide subrogee and set forth how and when he or she became subrogee.” HN2735 ILCS 5/2-403(c) (West 1996).
The trial court permitted Kelso-Burnett to amend its complaint to identify the plaintiff as Kelso-Burnett, for the use of its subrogees Risk Enterprise Management and Crum & Forester. Moran does not contend that the complaint inadequately identifies the subrogees’ interest. In Prudential Insurance Co. v. Romanelli, 243 Ill. App. 3d 246, 250, [***13] 612 N.E.2d 24, 183 Ill. Dec. 767 (1993), the appellate court held that “HN3the interest of the subrogee cannot be concealed in any proceeding brought for its benefit, but it must be either named as the plaintiff or disclosed as the real party in interest.” However, the court did not hold that the insurer as subrogee needed to disclose itself to the jury as the real party in interest, as the case concerned pleadings, not jury instructions. The court clarified its limited holding:
“We believe that Prudential will meet the letter of the law where it, as subrogee, either (1) brings the action in its own name or (2) discloses in the pleadings or otherwise by oath or affidavit that it is the actual bona fide subrogee and then sets forth how and when it became the subrogee.” Romanelli, 243 Ill. App. 3d at 251.
The amended complaint fully complies with the requirements of section 2-403 (c), which has no direct bearing on jury instructions. Moran cites no authority for the proposition that the court must identify the parties to the jury as they are identified on the pleadings. … Instead, the court’s manner of identifying the parties appeared to prevent any possible prejudice against insurance companies from affecting the outcome…”
Non Standard IPI Instruction – Paid Bills:
If you decide that a bill was paid by a party, you may infer from such evidence [and
any other evidence in the case] that it was a reasonable expense for necessary services received, unless you find that the inference is overcome by believable evidence. .
[See Ross v. Cortes, 95 Ill. App. 3rd 772 (1st Dist – 1981) and Smith v. Champaign-Urbana, 116 Ill. App. 2d 289 (4th Dist – 1969) Both cases adopt principal that:““It has been the long-followed rule in Illinois that a paid automobile repair bill is admissible in evidence without other foundation as prima facie evidence of the necessity and reasonableness of such repairs. Byalos v. Matheson, 328 Ill 269, 159 NE 242 (1927); Finch v. Carlton, 249 Ill App 15 (1928); Singer v. Cross, 257 Ill App 41 (1930); Schmidt v. Sinclair, 342 Ill App 484, 97 NE2d 129 (1st Dist 1951).” The same principal is applied to medical and hospital bills per Ross which states that in Flynn v. Cusentino (1978), 59 Ill. App. 3d 262, 375 N.E.2d 433, appeal denied (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 608… [t]his court held the same reasoning applies to hospital bills, and even to doctor bills on the theory that payment of this type of bill is prima facie evidence the bill was reasonable and the crucial matter is the testimony the bill has been paid. The court added any contrary rule would cause unnecessary inconvenience to doctors, hospital personnel and the public. The same principle is set out in Millburn Mutual Insurance Co. v. Glaze (1980), 86 Ill. App. 3d 1055, 1061, 410 N.E.2d 295, and cases there cited.]