Wrongful Death – $9.1 Million – Head-On Collision

Jury Instructions-IL > Motor Vehicle Accidents > Wrongful Death – $9.1 Million – Head-On Collision

Guillermina Espinosa as special Administrator of Estate of Luis Ramirez, Deceased vs. Susan Jayne 07 L 10422

Wrongful Death – Head-on Collision – $ 9.1 Million – Curative revisions to instructions during closing arguments.

The jury awarded the estate $9.1 million in a wrongful death case where the defendant’s 20’ pick-up truck/trailer swerved into oncoming traffic to avoid colliding with a left-turning dump trunk, and struck head-on the decedent’s Dodge Neon, pushing it over 100’ on U.S. 20 in Elgin, Illinois. [Note: The court sustained two objections, gave admonitions and altered instructions to cure two alleged errors during closing arguments.]

IPI 1.01 – Revised during closing argument to cure alleged erroneous remark that a special interrogatory was submitted “by defendant”

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. All of these instructions are the court’s instruction and not the instructions of any party to this case. In other words, there are no so-called “Plaintiff’s Instructions” and no so-called ”defendant’s instructions”. These instructions which I will give you are composed largely by a Committee of the Illinois Supreme Court.

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.

I have not meant to indicate any opinion as to the facts of this case by any of my rulings, remarks, or instructions.

You will decide what facts have been proven. Facts may be proven by evidence or reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence. Evidence consists of the testimony of witnesses and of exhibits admitted by the court. You should consider all the evidence without regard to which party produced it. You may use common sense gained from your experiences in life in evaluating what you see and hear during trial.

You are the only judges of the credibility of the witnesses. You will decide the weight to be given to the testimony of each of them. In evaluating the credibility of a witness you may consider that witness’ ability and opportunity to observe, memory, manner, interest, bias, qualifications, experience, and any previous inconsistent statement or act by the witness concerning an issue important to the case.

The use of cell phones, text messaging, Internet postings and Internet access devices in connection with your deliberations violates the rules of evidence and you are prohibited from using them

You must make your decision based on what you recall of the evidence. You will not receive a written transcript of the testimony when you retire to the jury room.

An opening statement is what an attorney expects the evidence will be. A closing argument is given at the conclusion of the case and is a summary of what an attorney contends the evidence has shown. If any statement or argument of an attorney is not supported by the law or the evidence you should disregard that statement.

IPI 2.01 – Evidence Deposition

The testimony of Deputy Coroner Amy Renwick was presented by the reading of his testimony. You should give this testimony the same consideration you would give it had the witness personally appeared in court.

2.04 Limiting Instruction—Expert Testifies to Matters Not Admitted in Evidence

I have allowed Dr. Condon and Mr. Dilich to testify in part to books, records, articles, and statements that have not been admitted in evidence. This testimony is allowed for a limited purpose. It is allowed so that the witness may tell you what he relied on to form their opinions. The material being referred to is not evidence in this case and may not be considered by you as evidence. You may consider the material for the purpose of deciding what weight, if any, you will give the opinions testified to by these witnesses.

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 Liability 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.

IPI 3.04 Circumstantial Evidence

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

IPI 3.08 – Opinion Testimony

You have heard 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 10.01 Negligence—Adult—Definition

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

IPI 10.02 Ordinary Care—Adult—Definition

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

IPI 10.04 Duty to Use Ordinary Care—Adult—Defendant

The Plaintiff in this case is: Guillermina Espinosa Ramirez as special Administrator of Estate of Luis Ramirez, Deceased

The Defendant in this case is: Susan Jayne

It was the duty of the defendant, Susan Jayne, before and at the time of the occurrence, to use ordinary care for the safety of the decedent, Luis Ramirez. That means it was the duty of the defendant to be free from negligence.

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 12.04 Concurrent Negligence Other Than Defendant’s

More than one person may be to blame for causing an injury. If you decide that the defendant was negligent and that her negligence was a proximate cause of injury to the Luis Ramirez, then 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 injury to Luis Ramirez was the conduct of some person other than Susan Jayne, then your verdict should be for the defendant, Susan Jayne.

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. It need not be the only cause, nor the last or nearest cause. It is sufficient if it concurs with some other cause acting at the same time, which in combination with it, causes the injuries or damages.

IPI 20.01 – ISSUES – Negligence

20.01 Issues Made By The Pleadings–Negligence–One Or More Defendants [Modified]

The Estate of Luis Ramirez claims that Luis Ramirez was killed and that the defendant, Susan Jayne, was negligent in one or more of the following respects:

(a) Failed to keep a proper and sufficient lookout while operating her

motor vehicle; or

(b) Proceeded at a speed which was greater than reasonable and proper with regards

to traffic conditions and the use of the highway; or

(d) Failed to apply her brakes in sufficient time; or

(e) Operated her motor vehicle on the wrong side of the roadway.

The Estate of Luis Ramirez further claims that one or more of the foregoing was a proximate cause of Luis Ramirez’s death.

The Defendant, Susan Jayne, denies that she did any of the things claimed by the Estate of Luis Ramirez and denies that any claimed act or omission on the part of the defendant was a proximate cause of Luis Ramirez’s death.

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 Luis Ramirez died.

Third, that the negligence of the defendant was a proximate cause of the death of Luis Ramirez.

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 three propositions has not been proved, then your verdict should be for the defendant.

IPI 31.04 Measure of Damages — Wrongful Death — Adult Decedent — Widow and Lineal Next of Kin Surviving Next of Kin Surviving

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 widow and children of the decedent for the “pecuniary loss” proved by the evidence to have resulted to the widow and children from the death of the decedent.

Where a decedent leaves a widow and children, the law recognizes a presumption that the widow and children have sustained some substantial “pecuniary loss” by reason of the death of the decedent. “Pecuniary loss” may include loss of money, benefits, goods, services, and society. The weight given this presumption is for you to decide from the evidence in this case.

IPI 31.11 Damages—Loss of Society—Definition

When I use the term “society” in these instructions, I mean the mutual benefits that each family member receives from the other’s continued existence, including love, affection, care, attention, companionship, comfort, guidance, and protection.

In determining pecuniary loss, you may consider what the evidence shows concerning the following:

What money, benefits, goods and services the decedent customarily contributed in the past;
What money, benefits, goods and services the decedent was likely to have contributed in the future;
What instruction, moral training, superintendence of education the decedent might reasonably have been expected to give his children had he lived;
His age;
His sex;
His physical and mental characteristics;
His habits of industry and thrift;
His occupational abilities;
The grief, sorrow, and mental suffering of Guillermina Espinosa Ramirez, Evangelina Ramirez, Jose Ramirez and Stephanie Ramirez.
The relationship between Jose Ramirez and his father;
The relationship between Evangelina Ramirez and her father;
The relationship between Stephanie Ramirez and her father;
The marital relationship that existed between Guillermina Espinosa Ramirez and Luis Ramirez; and
Funeral and burial expenses.

Whether pecuniary loss has been proved by the evidence is for you to determine.

[IPI 31.07 Measure of Damages — Wrongful Death — Factors Excluded]

In determining “pecuniary loss” you may not consider the following:

The poverty or wealth of the widow and next of kin.

IPI 31.09 Action for Wrongful Death and Survival Action Brought by Personal Representative

The plaintiff, Guillermina Espinosa Ramirez, brings this action in a representative capacity by reason of her being administrator of the estate of Luis Ramirez, deceased. She represents herself, Evangelina Ramirez, Jose Ramirez and Stephanie Ramirez, the next of kin of the deceased. They are the real parties in interest in this lawsuit, and in that sense are the real plaintiffs whose damages you are to determine if you decide for the estate of Luis Ramirez.

IPI 31.11 Damages–Loss of Society–Definition

IPI 31.13 Mortality Tables as Evidence of Damages–Wrongful Death Case

If you find for the plaintiff, then in assessing damages you may consider how long Guillermina Espinosa Ramirez, Evangeline Ramirez, Jose Ramirez and Stephanie Ramirez will be likely to sustain pecuniary losses as a result of Luis Ramirez’s death, considering how long Luis Ramirez was likely to have lived and how long Guillermina Espinosa Ramirez, Evangeline Ramirez, Jose Ramirez and Stephanie Ramirez are likely to live.

According to a table of mortality in evidence, the life expectancy of a male person aged 54 years (Luis Ramirez) is 25.5 years. These figures are not conclusive. They are the average life expectancies of persons who have reached those ages. They may be considered by you in connection with other evidence relating to the probable life expectancies of the decedent and his widow and children including evidence of the decedent’s occupation, health, habits and activities, bearing in mind that some persons live longer and some persons live less than the average.

In calculating the amount of these pecuniary losses consisting of money, benefits, goods or services, you must determine their present cash value. “Present cash value” means the sum of money needed now which, together with what that sum may reasonably be expected to earn in the future, will equal the amounts of those pecuniary losses at the times in the future when they will be sustained.

Damages for loss of sexual relations and loss of society are not reduced to present cash value.

IPI.36.01 In Absence of Liability—No Occasion to Consider Damages

If you decide for the defendant on the question of liability, you will have no

occasion to consider the question of damages.

IPI 60.01 Violation of Statute, Ordinance, or Administrative Regulation

There were in force in the State of Illinois at the time of the occurrence in question certain statutes which provided that:

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 and the use of the highway, or endangers 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…or when special hazard exists. Speed must be decreased as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person or vehicle.

Upon all roadways of sufficient width a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half

of the roadway, except…when an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the roadway; provided, any person so doing shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the roadway within such distance as to constitute an immediate hazard.

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

IPI B45.01 – FORMS OF VERDICT – Revised during closing argument to cure alleged erroneous remark that answering “yes” to a special interrogatory would compromise the general verdict.

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: Guillermina Espinosa Ramirez as special Administrator of Estate of Luis Ramirez, Deceased

The Defendant in this case is: Susan Jayne

If you find for Plaintiff and against the Defendant, then you should use

Verdict Form A.

If you find for Defendant and against the Plaintiff, then you should use

Verdict Form B.

A “Special Interrogatory” is supplied with these instructions. After you have reached a verdict, fill in and sign the Special Interrogatory and return it to the court along with the forms of verdict. Your answer to the Special Interrogatory has no bearing whatever on any other issue or any other verdict that you must decide. Do not speculate or infer about its effect upon any other issue or verdict you are deciding.

The Special Interrogatory must be signed by each of you.

IPI B45.01.A – VERDICT FORM A

VERDICT FORM A

We, the jury, find for the Estate of Luis Ramirez and against Susan Jayne.

We assess the damages in the sum of $ ________ ,

itemized as follows:

The Pecuniary Loss to Guillermina Espinosa Ramirez. $_ _______

The Pecuniary Loss to Luis Ramirez’s children. $_ _______

The grief, sorrow, and mental suffering of

Guillermina Espinosa Ramirez $_ _______

The grief, sorrow, and mental suffering of

Luis Ramirez’ children. $_ _______

Past and Future Lost Earnings. $_ _______

Funeral and Burial Expenses $_ _______

[Signature Lines ]

B45.01.B Verdict Form B- COMPARATIVE

VERDICT FORM B

We, the jury, find for Susan Jayne and against the Estate of Luis Ramirez.

[Signature Lines ]

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY

Was the conduct of the left turning gravel dump truck the sole proximate cause

of the collision between Ms. Jayne’s vehicle and Mr. Ramirez’s vehicle at the time of the

occurrence?

YES: ___________________

NO: ___________________

[Signature Lines ]