Ready v. United/Goedecke Services, Inc., No. 1-04-1762 (Ill. App. Aug. 23, 2006)

The appellate court held that defendants who settle with the plaintiff should go on the verdict form to allocate fault pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-1117. 

Plaintiff, Terry E. Ready, special administrator of the estate of Michael P. Ready, sued defendants United/Goedecke Services Inc. (United), BMW Constructors, Inc. (BMW), and Midwest Generation EME, L.L.C. (Midwest), as a result of an accident in which Michael Ready was killed at Midwest’s factory on Dec. 23, 1999, in Joliet, Ill. Michael Ready was a mechanic employed by Midwest Generation, L.L.C., whose parent company was Midwest. He was working on a pipe-refitting project at the factory. Defendant BMW was the general contractor hired by Midwest and defendant United was the scaffolding subcontractor hired by BMW to erect temporary scaffolding for the project. Michael Ready was killed when one of the scaffolding beams fell and struck him.

Prior to trial, plaintiff Terry Ready settled her claims against BMW and Midwest. United, the sole remaining defendant, did not object to the settlements and the trial court found that they were made in good faith. At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s trial against United, the jury returned a $14,230,000 verdict for the plaintiff. The judgment was reduced to $9,250,000 after assessing Michael Ready’s contributory negligence at 35 percent. The trial court allowed a setoff of $1,112,502.58, which was the total amount paid to the plaintiff by the settling defendants.

United appealed the verdict and, on appeal, raised numerous contentions relating to the admissibility of certain evidence at trial regarding the settling defendants. United also contended that the trial court erred in excluding the settling defendants from the jury verdict form.

Prior to trial, the court granted the plaintiffs motions seeking to bar the introduction at trial of any evidence relating to BMW and Midwest, finding that any evidence relating to them was irrelevant because they had settled. Also prior to trial, defendant United filed a motion seeking to include BMW and Midwest on the jury verdict form for purposes of fault apportionment. The court denied the motion and determined that the jury would only apportion fault between Michael Ready and United. United argued that these pretrial rulings prevented it from arguing that something other than its conduct caused the injury.

The appellate court first examined whether the trial court’s rulings were proper. Using Lannom v. Kosco, 158 Ill. 2d 535 (1994), which held that a settling defendant and its dismissal from the case does not affect a nonsettling defendant’s rights under Section 2-1117 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-1117 (West 2002)), the appellate court found that the trial court erred in holding that BMW and Midwest should not be included on the jury verdict form for fault apportionment and that a new trial was in order.

Next, the appellate court examined whether the trial court erred in excluding certain evidence regarding the settling defendants. Since the appellate court found that BMW and Midwest should have been included on the jury verdict form, it ruled that any evidence necessary to determine their relative culpability is relevant and admissible on retrial.

The appellate court then addressed United’s contention that the trial court erred in giving the short form of Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Civil, No. 12.04 (2000) and, thereby, prevented United from raising the argument that something other than its conduct caused the injury. Because it had determined that a new trial was in order, it did not address United’s contention. However, in the event that this issue occurred on retrial, the appellate court instructed the trial court that a determination regarding the instruction given should depend on the evidence adduced at retrial. See Leonardi v. LoyolaUniversityof Chicago, 168 Ill. 2d 83, 100 (1995).

Lastly, the appellate court addressed whether the issue of damages would be revisited on retrial. The appellate court affirmed the damage award amount, stating that United failed to specifically argue that  the damage award was improper and therefore waived any right to challenge the amount of damages award. See In re marriage of Thornqvist, 79 Ill. App. 3d 791, 799 (1979).

In conclusion, the appellate court found that the trial court should not have excluded the settling defendants from the jury verdict form and that a new trial as to liability only is required. Noting that because the pre-amendment version of section 2-1117 applies to this case, the appellate court ruled that it is proper to include the plaintiff’s employer, Midwest, on the verdict form on retrial. The court further found that upon retrial, evidence relating to the culpability of the settling defendants and third-party defendants is relevant and admissible. Additionally, only after the close of evidence at retrial can a determination be made as to whether a jury instruction regarding sole proximate cause would be proper.

Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for a new trial on the issues of liability and apportionment of damages only.

To read the full opinion, please click below on Download PDF.

This alert has been prepared by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. It is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship.