Intersection MVA – $25 million v Mult Defts

Jury Instructions-IL > Motor Vehicle Accidents > Intersection MVA – Paraplegia – $25 Million > Intersection MVA – $25 million v Mult Defts

Intersection Accident – $25 Million paraplegia injury vs. Multiple Defendants

Andrzej Chraca v. Miles (IDOT) & United Woodworking 05 L 7605

This 2009 jury trial concerned a spinal/paraplegia injury from and intersection collision

resulted in a verdict of $25 million les comparative of 5%.

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

[North]

| S/B |

| Blck Suburbn |

| [CHROCO] |

| W . |

| R . |

————————————|—————– |———————————–

| I |

[West] FRONTAGE Rd | G | [East]

| |

E/B Orange Chevy GMC…. | H |

[MILES] | |

————————————|—————– |———————————–

| T |

| . |

| N/B . |

| Ford Red Flbd|

| [TOYE] |

[South]

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

1.01 Preliminary Cautionary Instructions

Now that the evidence has concluded, I will 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.

My rulings, remarks or instruction do not indicate any opinion as to the facts.

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 duties 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. Herrera, Dr. Livesay, and Dr. Shea was presented by video tapes of the doctors’ testimony. You should give this testimony the same consideration you would give it had the witnesses 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

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 3.08 – Opinion Testimony

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

IPI 3.04 Circumstantial Evidence

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

IPI 10.01 Negligence—Adult—Definition

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

IPI 10.02 Ordinary Care—Adult—Definition

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

IPI 15.01 – Proximate Cause

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

Combined IPI 10.03 & 4 Duty to Use Ordinary Care—Adult—Defendant/Duty of Care Adult Plaintiff—Contributory Negligence

In this suit, there is not only the complaint of Andrzej Chraca, against Steven Miles, but also a complaint of Steven Miles against Andrzej Chraca and United Woodworking.

As to complaint of Andrzej Chraca against Steven Miles

The Plaintiff in this case is: Andrzej Chraca

The Defendant in this case is: Steven Miles

As to complaint of Steven Miles against Andrzej Chraca

The Plaintiff in this case is: Steven Miles

The Defendants in this case are: United Woodworking., Inc., &Andrzej Chraca

It was the duty of each the named Defendants, before and at the time of the occurrence, to use ordinary care for the safety of each named Plaintiff. That means it was the duty of the Defendants to be free from negligence.

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

A 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/a] Plaintiff would otherwise be entitled is reduced in proportion to the amount of his 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 20.02 Issues Made by the Pleadings—Negligence—Chraca

In the Complaint of Andrzej Chraca as Plaintiff against Steven Miles as Defendant, Andrzej Chraca claims that he sustained injuries and damages, and that the Defendant, Steven Miles, was negligent in one or more of the following respects:

Failed to stop at a red light

Failed to keep a proper lookout

Operated his vehicle at a speed greater than was reasonable given the conditions at the intersection.

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

The Defendant, Steven Miles, denies that he did any of the things claimed by Andrzej Chraca, denies that he was negligent in doing any of the things claimed by Andrzej Chraca, and denies that any claimed act or omission on his part was a proximate cause of Andrzej Chraca’s claimed injuries.

The Defendant, Steven Miles, further denies that the Plaintiff, Andrzej Chraca, was injured or sustained damages to the extent claimed.

* * * * *

Furthermore, the Defendant, Steven Miles, claims that the Plaintiff, Andrzej Chraca, was contributorily negligent in one or more of the following respects:

Failed to stop at a red light

Failed to keep a proper lookout

Operated his vehicle at a speed greater than was reasonable given the conditions at the intersection.

The Defendant, Steven-Miles, further claims that one or more of the foregoing was a proximate cause of Andrzej Chraca’s own injuries and damages.

The Plaintiff, Andrzej Chraca, denies that he did any of the things claimed by Defendant, Steven Miles, denies that he was negligent in doing any of the things claimed by Steven Miles, and denies that any claimed act or omission on the Andrzej Chraca’s part was a proximate cause of his own claimed injuries and damages.

IPI 20.02 Issues Made by the Pleadings—Negligence—Miles

In the Complaint of Steven Miles as Plaintiff against United Woodworking, Inc., and Andrzej Chraca as Defendants, Steven Miles claims that he was injured and sustained damages, and that the Defendants, United Woodworking and Andrzej Chraca, were negligent in one or more of the following ways:

Failed to stop at a red light

Failed to keep a proper lookout

Operated his vehicle at a speed greater than was reasonable given the conditions at the intersection.

The Plaintiff, Steven Miles, further claims that one or more of the foregoing was a proximate cause of his injuries.

The Defendants, United Woodworking and Andrzej Chraca, deny that they did any of the things claimed by Steven Miles, deny that they were negligent in doing any of the things claimed by Steven Miles, and deny that any claimed act or omission on their part was a proximate cause of the Steven Miles’ claimed injuries. The Defendants, United Woodworking and Andrzej Chraca, further denies that the-Plaintiff, Steven Miles, was injured or sustained damages to the extent claimed.

* * * * *

Furthermore, the Defendants, United Woodworking and Andrzej Chraca, claim that the Plaintiff, Steven Miles, was contributorily negligent in one or more of the following respects:

Failed to stop at a red light

Failed to keep a proper lookout

Operated his vehicle at a speed greater than was reasonable given the conditions at the intersection.

The Defendants, United Woodworking and Andrzej Chraca, further claim that one or more of the foregoing was a proximate cause of Steven Miles’ own injuries and damages.

The Plaintiff, Steven Miles, denies that he did any of the things claimed by the Defendants, United Woodworking and Andrzej Chraca, denies that he was negligent in doing any of the things claimed by United Woodworking and Andrzej Chraca, and denies that any claimed act or omission on the Steven Miles’ part was a proximate cause of his own claimed injuries and 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 a party has the burden of proof is more probably true than not true.

IPI NO. 21.05 Counterclaims/Modified/Chraca

In the Complaint of Andrzej Chraca as Plaintiff against Steven Miles as Defendant, in order for the Plaintiff, Andrzej Chraca, to recover, he has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:

First, that the Defendant, Steven Miles, acted or failed to act in one of the ways claimed by the Plaintiff, Andrzej Chraca, as stated to you in these instructions and that in so acting, or failing to act, the Defendant, Steven Miles, was negligent;

Second, that the Plaintiff, Andrzej Chraca, suffered injuries;

Third, that the negligence of the Defendant, Steven Miles, was a proximate cause of the Plaintiff, Andrzej Chraca’s injuries.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any of these propositions has not been proved, then your verdict should be for the Defendant, Steven Miles, as to the Plaintiff-Andrzej Chraca’s complaint. 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-Steven Miles’ claim that the Plaintiff, Andrzej Chraca, was contributorily negligent.

As to that claim, the Defendant, Steven Miles, has the burden of proving both of the following propositions:

First, that the Plaintiff, Andrzej Chraca, acted or failed to act in one of the ways claimed by the Defendant, Steven Miles, as stated to you in these instructions and that in so acting, or failing to act, the Plaintiff, Andrzej Chraca, was negligent;

Second, that Plaintiff, Andrzej Chraca’s negligence was a proximate cause of his own injuries.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the Plaintiff, Andrzej Chraca, has proved all the propositions required of the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant, Steven Miles, has not proved both of the propositions required of the Defendant, then your verdict should be for the Plaintiff, Andrzej Chraca, and you will not reduce Andrzej Chraca’s damages.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the Plaintiff, Andrzej Chraca, has proved all the propositions required of the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant, Steven Miles, has proved both of the propositions required of the Defendant, and if you find that Andrzej Chraca’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 Andrzej Chraca, and you will reduce the Andrzej Chraca’s damages in the manner stated to you in these instructions.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the Defendant, Steven Miles, has proved both the propositions required of the Defendant, and if you find that the Plaintiff-Andrzej Chraca’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, Steven Miles.

IPI NO. 21./05 Counterclaims/Modified/Miles

In the Complaint of Steven Miles as Plaintiff against United Woodworking, Inc., and Andrzej Chraca as Defendants, in order for the Plaintiff, Steven Miles, to recover, he as the burden of proving each of the following propositions:

First, that the Defendants, United Woodworking and Andrzej Chraca, acted or failed to act in one of the ways claimed by the Plaintiff, Steven Miles, as stated to you in these instructions and that in so acting, or failing to act, United Woodworking and Andrzej Chraca were negligent;

Second, that the Plaintiff, Steven Miles, suffered injuries;

Third, that the negligence of the Defendants, United Woodworking and Andrzej Chraca, was a proximate cause of the Plaintiff, Steven Miles’ 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, United Woodworking and Andrzej Chraca, as to the Plaintiff-Steven Miles’ complaint. On the other hand, if you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these propositions has been proved, then you must consider the Defendants, United Woodworking and Andrzej Chraca’s claim that the Plaintiff, Steven Miles was contributorily negligent.

As to that claim, the Defendants, United Woodworking and Andrzej Chraca, have the burden of proving both of the following propositions:

First, that the Plaintiff, Steven Miles, acted or failed to act in one of the ways claimed by the Defendants, United Woodworking and Andrzej Chraca, as stated to you in these instructions and that in so acting, or failing to act, the Plaintiff, Steven Miles, was negligent;

Second, that Plaintiff, Steven Miles’ negligence was a proximate cause of his own injuries.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the Plaintiff, Steven Miles, has proved all the propositions required of the Plaintiff, and that the Defendants, United Woodworking and Andrzej Chraca, have proved both of the propositions required of the Defendants, and if you find that the Steven Miles’ 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 Steven Miles, and you will reduce Steven Miles’ damages in the manner stated to you in these instructions.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the Defendants, United Woodworking and Andrzej Chraca, has proved both the propositions required of the Defendants, and if you find that the Plaintiff-Steven Miles’ contributory negligence was more than 50% of the total proximate cause of damage for which recovery is sought, then your verdict should be for the Defendants, United Woodworking and Andrzej Chraca.

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 the Plaintiff for any of the following elements of damages proved by the evidence to have resulted from the negligence of Defendant(s), taking into consideration the nature, extent and duration of the injury.

As to either or both Plaintiffs, Andrzej Chraca and Steven Miles

The reasonable expense of necessary medical care, treatment and services received in the past as a result of the injuries.

The disfigurement as a result of the injuries.

The pain and suffering experienced and reasonably certain to be experienced in the future as a result of the injuries.

The loss of a normal life experienced. and reasonably certain to be experienced in the future as a result of the injuries.

30.04.02 Loss of a Normal Life—Definition

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

As to the Plaintiff, Andrzej Chraca:

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

As to the Plaintiff, Steven Miles:

The value of earnings and benefits, lost and the present cash value of the earnings and benefits reasonably certain to be lost in the future as a result of the injuries.

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, 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.

Andrzej Chraca is not making a claim for past or future loss of earnings.

Steven Miles is not making a claim for future medical expenses.

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 and loss of a normal life are not reduced to present cash value.

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 male aged 38 years is 39.5 years, and the life expectancy of a white male aged 56 years is 24.5 years. These figures are not conclusive. It is the average life expectancy of persons who have reached the ages of 38 and 56. 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 a Defendant on the question of liability, you will have no occasion to consider the question of damages as to that Defendant.

IPI 41.01 Two or More Plaintiffs

The rights of the Plaintiffs are separate and distinct. Each is entitled to a fair consideration of his 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 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 41.03 Two or More Defendants

The rights of the Defendants 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.

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

The Defendants, United Woodworking and Andrzej Chraca, Inc., are sued as principal and agent. The Defendant, United Woodworking is the principal and the Defendant, Andrzej Chraca, is its agent.

If you find that the Defendant, Andrzej Chraca, is liable, then you must find that the Defendant, United Woodworking, is also liable. However, if you find that Andrzej Chraca is not liable, then you must find that United Woodworking, Inc. is not liable.

IPI 50.11 A Corporation Acts Through Its Employees

The Defendant, United Woodworking, Inc., is a corporation and can act only through its 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 Defendant corporation.

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:

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.

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.

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

IPI 70.01 Duty of Driver Using Highway

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

IPI B45.03 – 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 verdicts 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.

As to complaint of Andrzej Chraca against Steven Miles

The Plaintiff in this case is: Andrzej Chraca

The Defendant in this case is: Steven Miles

If you find for Plaintiff Andrzej Chraca and against the Defendant, Steven Miles, and if you further find that Plaintiff-Andrzej Chraca’s injuries were proximately caused by a combination of Defendant-Steven Miles’ negligence and the Plaintiff-Andrzej Chraca’s contributory negligence, and that Chraca’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 A, writing in the percentage of the Plaintiff-Chraca’s contributory negligence on Line “(a)” of Paragraph “Second” of Verdict Form C.

If you find for Defendant, Steven Miles, and against the Plaintiff, Andrzej Chraca, or if you find that Plaintiff-Andrzej Chraca’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 B.

As to complaint of Steven Miles against United Woodworking, Inc. & Andrzej Chraca

The Plaintiff in this case is: Steven Miles

The Defendants in this case are: United Woodworking., Inc. & Andrzej Chraca

If you find for Plaintiff, Steven Miles, and against the Defendants, United Woodworking and Andrzej Chraca, and if you further find that Plaintiff-Steven Miles’ injuries were proximately caused by a combination of Defendants-United Woodworking and Andrzej Chraca’s negligence and the Plaintiff-Steven Miles’ contributory negligence, and that Miles’ contributory negligence was 50% or less of the total proximate cause of damages for which recovery is sought, then you should use Verdict Form C, writing in the percentage of the Plaintiff-Miles’ contributory negligence on Line “(a)” of Paragraph “Second” of Verdict Form A.

If you find for Defendant, United Woodworking and Andrzej Chraca, and against the Plaintiff, Steven Miles, or if you find that Plaintiff-Steven Mile’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 D.

VERDICT FORM A

We, the jury, find for the Plaintiff, Andrzej Chraca, and against the Defendant, Steven Miles. We assess the damages in the sum of $_____________________________, itemized as follows:

The reasonable expense of necessary medical care, treatment

and services received in the past. $_______________________

The reasonable expense of necessary medical care, treatment

and services reasonably certain to be received in the future. $_______________________

The disfigurement . $_______________________

The pain and suffering experienced, and reasonably certain

to be experienced in the future. $_______________________

The loss of a normal life experienced, and reasonably certain

to be experienced 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, we

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(%)

[Instruction to Jury: If you find that the plaintiff Andrzej Chraca was

not contributorily negligent, then you should enter a zero (-0-) s to Chraca]

Third: After reducing the total damages sustained by the

Plaintiff by the percentage of negligence attributable solely to

Plaintiff, we assess Plaintiff’s recoverable damages in the sum of $______________________

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

[Signature Lines ]

—————————————————– —————————————————-

(Foreperson)

—————————————————– —————————————————–

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————–

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————–

VERDICT FORM B

We, the jury, find for the Defendant, Steven Miles, and against the Plaintiff, Andrzej Chraca.

[Signature Lines ]

—————————————————– —————————————————-

(Foreperson)

—————————————————– —————————————————–

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————–

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————–

VERDICT FORM C

We, the jury, find for the Plaintiff, Steven Miles, and against the Defendants, United Woodworking and Andrzej Chraca. We assess the damages in the sum of $_________________________________________, itemized as follows:

The reasonable expense of necessary medical care, treatment

and services received in the past. $_______________________

The disfigurement. $_______________________

The pain and suffering experienced and reasonably certain

to be experienced in the future. $_______________________

The loss of a normal life experienced. and reasonably certain

to be experienced in the future. $_______________________

The value of lost earnings and benefits in the past. $_______________________

The present cash value of the earnings and benefits

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, we

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(%)

[Instruction to Jury: If you find that the plaintiff Steven Miles was

not contributorily negligent, then you should enter a zero (-0-) s to Miles]

Third: After reducing the total damages sustained

the Plaintiff by the percentage of negligence attributable solely to

Plaintiff, we assess Plaintiff’s recoverable damages in the sum of $_______________________

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

[Signature Lines ]

—————————————————– —————————————————-

(Foreperson)

—————————————————– —————————————————–

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————–

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————–

VERDICT FORM D

We, the jury, find for the Defendants, United Woodworking and Andrzej Chraca, and against the Plaintiff, Steven Miles.

[Signature Lines ]

—————————————————– —————————————————-

(Foreperson)

—————————————————– —————————————————–

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————–

—————————————————– —————————————————-

—————————————————– —————————————————–