Civil Conspiracy, Battery, Sexual Assault, Emot. Dist. & Malicious Prosecution

Jury Instructions-IL > Intentional Torts > Civil Conspiracy, Battery, Sexual Assault, Emot. Dist. & Malicious Prosecution

Donna Morrone vs. Bonnie Rawitz and Barbara Lake, 04 L 7564/12247 et al

Domestic property dispute erupts into multiple claims and counter-claims for punitive and compensatory damages with allegations sounding in civil conspiracy, false arrest & imprisonment, malicious prosecution, perjury, intentional infliction of emotional distress, sexual assault, and assault and battery among the parties. Uniquely customized instructions include instructions on willful conduct, intent (non-IPI), self-defense (non-IPI) and punitive damages.

IPI 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. Each party, whether a municipality or an individual, should receive your same fair consideration.

It is your duty to resolve this case by determining the facts and following the law given in the 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.

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 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 3.01 Rulings and Remarks of the 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 3.04 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.

14.04 Duty to Refrain From Willful and Wanton Conduct—Defendant

Under the Complaint and Counter-Complaint, it was the duty of the Party-Defendant, before and at the time of the occurrence, to refrain from willful and wanton conduct which would endanger the safety of any Party-Plaintiff.

14.01 Willful and Wanton Conduct—Definition

When I use the expression “willful and wanton conduct” I mean a course of action which shows actual or deliberate intention to harm or which, if not intentional, shows an utter indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of others.

NON IPI Requirement of Intent

When I use the term ”intent,” I mean a defendant’s state of mind at the time of the occurence. Defendant intended an act if defendant engaged in the act for the purpose of bringing about certain desired results. In addition, defendant intended an act if defendant committed an act that a reasonable person would know with a substantial certainty would have certain consequences whether Defendant desired those consequences or not. You may consider evidence of Defendant’s actions and words as an indication of Defendant’s state of mind.

IPI 15.01 Proximate Cause

When I use the expression “proximate cause,” I mean any cause which, in natural or probable sequence, produced the injuries or damages complained of.

20.01.01 Issues Made by the Pleadings—Negligence and Willful and Wanton Counts

Under Count I as to the Plaintiff, Donna Morrone, and the Defendant, Bonnie Rawitz, the plaintiff, Donna Morrone, claims that she was injured and sustained damage and that the conduct of the defendant, Bonnie Rawitz, was willful and wanton in one or more of the following respects:

False Arrest & Malicious Prosecution:

That on or after December 24, 2003 Bonnie Rawitz did intentionally make false accusations to the police, and did give false testimony in a court of law, against the Plaintiff, Donna Morrone, that Donna Morrone did grab and/or pull down Bonnie Rawitz in order to cause Donna Morrone to be arrested, imprisoned, and convicted a crime.

Under a Counter-Claim for Battery, the defendant, Barbara Lake, as Counter—Plaintiff claims that she was injured and that the conduct of the Counter-Defendant, Donna Morrone, was willful and wanton in one or more of the following respects:

That on December 24, 2003 Donna Morrone did grab, hold, and/or push Barbara Lake.

The Counter-Plaintiff, Barbara Lake, further claims that one or more of the foregoing was a proximate cause of her injuries.

The Counter-Defendant, Donna Morrone, denies that she did any of the things claimed in the counterclaim, denies doing any claimed act or omission on her part was a proximate cause of the Counter-Plaintiff’s claimed injuries, and further denies that Barbara Lake sustained injuries to the extent claimed.

[Non-Standard IPI Definition of Self Defense]

Furthermore, the Counter-Defendant, Donna Morrone, also sets up the following affirmative defense of Self Defense to Barbara Lake’s Counter-Complaint for Battery, in one or more of the following respects:

That Donna Morrone was not the aggressor

That prior to any physical contact, Donna Morrone was subjected to physical contact and verbal threats of immediate bodily harm without lawful justification resulting in Donna Morrone’s reasonable belief that use of physical force was necessary to protect herself from an imminent battery;

That Donna Morrone reasonably believed she was in imminent danger of harm and used the amount of force necessary to avert the danger.

In deciding whether a person is reasonable in his belief that he is being threatened with immediate bodily harm, you must determine whether a reasonable person who found herself in that person’s situation would have believed that she was threatened with immediate bodily harm.

Barbara Lake denies that Donna Morrone acted in Self Defense, and further denies that the Barbara Lake was injured or 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.

B21.02.02 Burden of Proof on the Issues—Willful and Wanton Counts/B21.03 Burden of Proof on the Issues—FALSE IMPRISONMENT/MODIFIED

As to the Complaint for False Arrest and Imprisonment brought by the plaintiff, Donna Morrone, she has the burden of proving each of the following propositions by a preponderance of the evidence as to each of the defendants, Bonnie Rawitz and Barbara Lake:

(1) That Defendant(s) caused Plaintiff to be restrained or arrested;

(2) That the restraint or arrest was against Plaintiff’s will; and

(3) That Defendant(s) acted intentionally and without having reasonable grounds to believe that Plaintiff committed an offense.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of the propositions required of Plaintiff has been proved, then your verdict should be for Plaintiff.

If, on the other hand, you find from your consideration of all the evidence, that any one of the propositions Plaintiff is required to prove has not been proved, then your verdict should be for Defendant(s).

B21.02.02 Burden of Proof on the Issues—Willful and Wanton Counts/B21.03 Burden of Proof on the Issues—MALICIOUS PROSECUTION/MODIFIED

As to the Complaint for Malicious Prosecution brought by the plaintiff, Donna Morrone, she has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence each of the following propositions as to each of the defendants, Bonnie Rawitz and Barbara Lake:

Defendant(s) commenced an original criminal proceeding against plaintiff;
The proceeding was terminated in plaintiff’s favor;
The defendant(s) lacked “probable cause” for commencing the proceeding;
Defendant(s) commenced the proceeding with “malice”; and
Plaintiff was damaged by the commencement of the proceeding.

“Malice” is defined as the initiation of a prosecution for any reason other than to bring a party to justice.

“Probable cause” is defined as a state of facts that would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe, or to entertain an honest and strong suspicion, that the person arrested committed the offense charged.

Rodgers v. Peoples Gas, Light & Coke Company, 733 N.E.2d 835 (1^st Dist. 2000).

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of the propositions required of Plaintiff has been proved, then your verdict should be for Plaintiff.

B21.02.02 Burden of Proof on the Issues—One Plaintiff and One Defendant—Negligence and Willful and Wanton Counts/B21.03 Burden of Proof on the Issues—Affirmative Defenses/B21.04 Burden of Proof—Counterclaim—Negligence Only—One Plaintiff and One Defendant ALL MODIFIED

Louise Elinoff’s Complaint for Battery and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

I. In order for Louise Elinoff to recover on her complaint for Battery, she has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:

(1)That Antonio Curet had the intent to cause a harmful contact with Louise Elinoff.

(2)That Antonio Curet actually made unauthorized physical contact with Louise Elinoff that was harmful.

(3)That Louise Elinoff was injured.

(4)That Antonio Curet’s actions proximately caused the injury to Louise Elinoff.

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, Louise Elinoff.

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, Antonio Curet.

II. In order for Louise Elinoff to recover on her complaint for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, she has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:

(1) That Antonio Curet sexually assaulted the Louise Elinoff;

(2) That Antonio Curet’s conduct was extreme and outrageous;

(3) That Antonio Curet acted in deliberate disregard of a high probability that emotional distress would follow;

(4) That Louise Elinoff experienced severe emotional distress; and

(5) That Antonio Curet’s conduct did proximately caused Louise Elinoff’s emotional distress.

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, Louise Elinoff.

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, Antonio Curet.

20.01.01 Issues Made by the Pleadings—Negligence and Willful and Wanton Counts

Each party to this suit claims to be entitled to damages from the other: The plaintiff, under her complaint, and the defendant under his counterclaim.

Louise Elinoff’s Complaint for Battery and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Under the claim of Battery, the plaintiff, Louise Elinoff, claims that on November 20, 2003 she was injured and sustained damages and that the conduct of the defendant, Antonio Curet, was willful and wanton in the following respects:

1. That Antonio Curet had the intent to cause harmful and offensive contact with Louise Elinoff without consent.

2. That Antonio Curet actually made unauthorized physical contact with Louise Elinoff that was harmful and offensive.

Under the claim of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, the plaintiff, Louise Elinoff, claims that on November 20, 2003 she was injured and sustained damages and that the conduct of the defendant, Antonio Curet, was willful and wanton in the following respects:

That Antonio Curet knowingly touched Louise Elinoff’s body with his hands and penis without consent.
That Antonio Curet’s conduct was extreme and outrageous.
That Antonio Curet acted in deliberate disregard of a high probability that emotional distress would follow.
That Louise Elinoff experienced severe emotional distress.

The plaintiff, Louise Elinoff, further claims that the foregoing was a proximate cause of her injuries.

The defendant, Antonio Curet, denies that he did any of the things claimed by the

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

B21.02.02 Burden of Proof on the Issues—Willful and Wanton Counts/B21.03 Burden of Proof on the Issues—BATTERY/MODIFIED – CCOMPLAINT

As to the Counter-Complaint for Battery brought by Barbara Lake against Donna Morrone, Barbara Lake has the burden of proving each of the following propositions by a preponderance of the evidence as to Donna Morrone.

1. That Defendant intended to touch the Plaintiff’s body;

2. That the Defendant actually touched the Plaintiff’s body;

3. That said touching was harmful or offensive; and

4. That said contact directly or indirectly caused an injury to the Plaintiff.

In this case counter-defendant, Donna Morrone, has asserted the affirmative defense that she acted in Self Defense, as previously described. Donna Morrone has the burden of proving this defense.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these propositions has been proved, and that the affirmative defense asserted herein by Donna Morrone has not been proved, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff, Barbara Lake.

On the other hand, if you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any of these propositions has not been proved, or that the affirmative defense asserted by Donna Morrone has been proved, then your verdict should be for the defendant, Donna Morrone.

IPI 30.01 Measure of Damages

If you decide for a plaintiff 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 willful and wanton conduct of the defendant, taking into consideration the nature, extent and duration of damages.

The reasonable expense of necessary medical care, treatment and services received.

Salaries, earnings, or benefits lost.

Damages for false imprisonment, the restraint of her freedom of movement.

Damages for malicious prosecution, the defense of the charge of battery.

Emotional Distress experienced and reasonably certain to be experienced in the future as a result of the wrongful conduct.

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

41.03 Two or More Defendants

The rights of the party-defendants, Bonnie Rawitz and Barbara Lake, are separate and distinct. Each is entitled to a fair consideration of his own defense and you will decide each defendant’s case separately as if it were a separate lawsuit. Each defendant’s case must be governed by the instructions applicable to that case.

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 parties in this case are:

Donna Morrone, as Plaintiff as against the Defendants, Bonnie Rawitz and Barbara Lake.

Barbara Lake as Counter-Plaintiff as against Donna Morrone, Counter-Defendant.

If you find for Donna Morrone, and against any defendant sued by Donna

Morrone, and if you also find that one or more persons identified on the form of verdict was willful and wanton in a manner which proximately caused injuries to Donna Morrone, then you must apportion damages by determining the relative degree of fault, if any, of each person named or described on the verdict form.

In making that determination, you should consider the duty owed by each to

Donna Morrone; the extent to which the conduct of each may have deviated from the duty owed to Donna Morrone; and the extent to which the willful and wanton conduct of each proximately caused injuries to Donna Morrone.

In your verdict form, you will state the percentage of fault of each of these persons. The total of these percentages must add up to 100%.

If you find for the Plaintiff, Donna Morrone, and against one or more of the Defendants, Bonnie Rawitz and Barbara Lake, and/or if you further find that that Plaintiff-Morrone’s injuries were proximately caused by a combination of the willful and wanton conduct of the defendants then you should use Verdict Form A.

If you find for both Defendants, Bonnie Rawitz and Barbara Lake, against the Plaintiff, Donna Morrone, then you should use Verdict Form B.

If you find for the Counter-Plaintiff, Barbara Lake, and against the Counter-Defendant, Donna Morrone, then should use Verdict Form C.

If you find for the Counter-Defendant, Donna Morrone, and against the Counter-Plaintiff, Barbara Lake, then you should use Verdict Form D.

IPI B45.01.A – VERDICT FORM A

VERDICT FORM A

We, the jury, find for the Plaintiff, Donna Morrone, and against the following defendant or defendants:

Bonnie Rawitz YES _____ NO _____

Barbara Lake YES _____ NO _____

First: Without taking into consideration the question of apportionment of damages, we find the total amount of damage suffered by Donna Morrone as a proximate result of the occurrence(s) in question is $_______________________________, itemized as follows:

Damages for false imprisonment $_________________

Damages for malicious prosecution $_________________

Damages for civil conspiracy $_________________

Reasonable Expense for Necessary Rental Housing: $_________________

Punitive damages $_________________

Second: Assuming that 100% represents the total combined wrongful conduct of all persons who proximately caused Donna Morrone’s injuries, we find the percentage of such wrongful conduct attributable to each as follows:

Bonnie Rawitz _________%

Barbara Lake _________%

TOTAL 100%

If you find that any defendant was not liable to the plaintiff, then you should enter a zero (-0-) as to that person.

[Signature Lines ]

—————————————————– —————————————————-

(Foreperson

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————

VERDICT FORM B

We, the jury, find for all of the defendants and against the plaintiff, Donna Morrone.

[Signature Lines ]

—————————————————– —————————————————-

(Foreperson

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————

VERDICT FORM C

We, the jury, find for the Counter-Plaintiff, Barbara Lake, and against the counter-defendant, Donna Morrone. We assess the damages in the sum of $_______________________, itemized as follows:

Pain and suffering experienced as a result of the injuries $_________________

Loss of Income $_________________

Reasonable expense of necessary medical care $_________________

Punitive Damages $_________________

[Signature Lines ]

—————————————————– —————————————————-

(Foreperson

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————

VERDICT FORM D

We, the jury, find for the Counter-Defendant, Donna Morrone, and against the Counter-Plaintiff, Barbara Lake.

[Signature Lines ]

—————————————————– —————————————————-

(Foreperson

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————