General Tort Case Update
By: Dennis E. Merkley
TWO INJURIES TO SAME BODY PART MAY NOT BE INDIVISIBLE.
In Sakellariadis v. Campbell, plaintiff was involved in two separate car accidents in a three-month time period. Plaintiff brought suit against both drivers, alleging that each accident caused severe and permanent injuries. Plaintiff alleged that the defendants were jointly and severally liable for the entire judgment. A trial was conducted on damages only. Plaintiff offered expert testimony at trial from her treating ophthalmologist stating that both car accidents contributed to her eye trauma. Plaintiff's orthopedic surgeon also testified that both accidents contributed to plaintiff's neck, lower back, shoulder and knee injuries. The jury returned a verdict finding both defendants 50% responsible for an amount totaling approximately $518,000 in damages.
Prior to the jury reaching its verdict, one of the defendants settled with plaintiff for $150,000. Plaintiff contended that the non-settling defendant was responsible for the entire $518,000 award less only the $150,000 received as settlement. The trial court entered a judgment of one-half of the total verdict against the non-settling defendant.
On appeal, the Appellate Court found that the two automobile accidents three months apart did not create a single indivisible injury as is necessary to establish that multiple defendants are jointly and severally liable. The Appellate Court ruled that the non-settling defendant was not jointly and severally liable for the entire judgment, but only liable for fifty percent of the judgment that the jury had attributed to him.
DUTY TO PROVIDE SAFE MEANS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS ONLY FOR AREAS CLEARLY DESIGNATED FOR SUCH PURPOSES.
In Rogers v. Matanda Inc., plaintiff filed suit alleging that the defendant breached its duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of invitees to its property, in that the defendant breached its duty to provide a reasonably safe means of ingress and egress for the plaintiff, who was a business invitee. Plaintiff went to a pub with friends to celebrate his 21st birthday. While at the bar, plaintiff ingested approximately 18 mixed drinks, and the plaintiff also recalled drinking from a pitcher of beer. The court noted, "[n]ot surprisingly, plaintiff recalls neither exiting the tavern nor falling." Plaintiff was escorted out of the rear exit of the bar by his friends. Plaintiff's friends attempted to convince plaintiff not to reenter the bar. Plaintiff started to walk around the side of the bar in an attempt to presumably enter through the front entrance of the bar. There was a change in elevation of several feet along the side of the bar. While walking along the side of the bar, plaintiff fell and suffered injuries. The circuit court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment based on lack of duty, and plaintiff appealed.
The Appellate Court affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment and reasoned that "[t]he area where the fall occurred is not within the area prescribed as a means of ingress and egress to the [pub]. Accordingly, the defendant had no duty to provide lighting, barricades or warnings of the drop off where the fall took place." Plaintiff also contended that his injuries were caused by an alleged defect in the property. The court dismissed this argument because plaintiff was unable to provide any evidence showing that his injuries were proximately caused by an alleged defect in the property. Plaintiff's own testimony was that he could not remember the events surrounding and leading up to the fall. Nor could any of plaintiff's friends provide testimony that the alleged defect was the cause of plaintiff's fall.
SETTLING DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO JURY TO DETERMINE LIABILITY.
In Ready v. United/Goedecke Services Inc., plaintiff filed suit for the wrongful death of her husband who was working on a pipe refitting project at a factory. As part of the project, scaffolding material had to be raised from the ground floor to the eighth floor where a scaffold would be assembled so that the pipe refitting work could be performed. Plaintiff's husband was killed when one of the beams that was to be used for scaffolding fell eight stories and struck him. Plaintiff settled her claims prior to trial with two of the defendants. The matter went to trial with one remaining defendant. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $14,230,000. Plaintiff's husband's contributory negligence was assessed at thirty-five percent, which reduced the judgment to $9,250,000. The circuit court allowed a setoff of approximately $1,112,502, which was the total amount paid to plaintiff by the settling defendants.
Defendant appealed, contending that it was deprived of a sole proximate cause defense when the circuit court excluded evidence of the conduct of the settling defendants and also refused defendant's jury instruction on sole proximate cause. The Appellate Court found that the circuit court should not have excluded evidence of the settling defendants' conduct. The Appellate Court stated that it was an abuse of discretion for the court to grant plaintiff's motions in limine as to that issue. The Appellate Court reiterated previous Supreme Court case law stating that "[a]n answer that is a general denial that an injury was the result of or caused by the defendant's conduct is sufficient to permit the defendant in support of its position to present evidence that the injury was the result of another cause." In this case, defendant's denial of liability was sufficient to permit it to present evidence that plaintiff's husband's death was the result of another entity's conduct.