1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

_____________________________________________________________________________

LUELLA PEHLKE, Individually and as

Special Administrator of the Estate of

FRANK PEHLKE, Deceased,

Case No.: 12−cv−00596

Plaintiff,

Honorable Virginia M. Kendall

v. 

CBS Corporation, 

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff’s Proposed Jury Instructions and Verdict Forms 9-28-16 (non-agreed)

______________________________________________________________________________

4. IPI 3.03 Insurance/Benefits 

5. IPI 12.04 Concurrent Negligence Other than Defendant’s

6. IPI 20.01 Issues Made by the Pleadings – Negligence 

8. IPI B 21.02 Burden of Proof on the Issues – Negligence

9. IPI 31.10 Damages – Survival Action (Estate of Frank Pehlke)

12. IPI 31.13 Mortality Tables as Evidence of Damages--Wrongful Death Case 

13. IPI B31.08 Damages--Wrongful Death--Contributory Fault—Decedent

[Duplicates B21.02 cannot have both] (no correspondence = n/a)

14. IPI B45.03 Instruction on Use of Verdict Forms – Negligence Only - Single 

Plaintiff and Multiple Tortfeasors (modified) 

15. IPI B45.03.A Verdict Form A (Estate of Frank Pehlke) - Single Plaintiff and 

Claimed Multiple Torfeasors 

16. IPI B45.03.A Verdict Form A2 (Lineal next of kin) - Single Plaintiff and 

Claimed Multiple Torfeasors 

Case: 1:12-cv-00596 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/28/16 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:4720
2

17. IPI B45.03.B Verdict Form B -Single Plaintiff and Defendant - Contributory 

Negligence - More than 50% (modified for multiple Plaintiffs and 

one defendant) 

Case: 1:12-cv-00596 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/28/16 Page 2 of 18 PageID #:4721
3

Whether a party is insured or not insured has no bearing 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 

your verdict, the court will make whatever adjustments are necessary in this regard.

Plaintiff’s Proposed Instruction No. 4

IPI 3.03 Insurance/Benefits 

Agreed: ____ Disputed: ____ Agreed with modifications: ____

Given: ____ Refused: ____ Given with modifications: ____

Corresponds with: ____N/A________

Case: 1:12-cv-00596 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/28/16 Page 3 of 18 PageID #:4722
4

 More than one person may be to blame for causing an injury. If you decide that the 

defendant was negligent and that its negligence was a proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff, it 

is not a defense that some third person who is not a party to the suit may also have been to 

blame.

Plaintiff’s Proposed Instruction No. 5

IPI 12.04 Concurrent Negligence Other Than Defendant's

Agreed: ____ Disputed: ____ Agreed with modifications: ____

Given: ____ Refused: ____ Given with modifications: ____

Corresponds with: ____CBS #38________

Case: 1:12-cv-00596 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/28/16 Page 4 of 18 PageID #:4723
5

Separate claims are filed by the Estate of Frank Pehlke and the widow and children of 

Frnak Pehlke. Plaintiffs claim that they was injured and sustained damage, and that the defendant 

acted or failed to act in one or more of the following respects, when the defendant knew or 

should have known about the health risks of asbestos during his alleged exposures to asbestos at 

the Joliet Arsenal.

 First, failing to adequately warn Frank Pehlke, his coworkers, or his employers of the 

health hazards of asbestos;

 Second, failing to adequately investigate or test for the health effects of the asbestoscontaining products or equipment;

 Third, failing to adequately instruct Frank Pehlke, his coworkers, or his employers, about 

precautionary measures necessary to prevent asbestos exposures;

 Fourth, failing to exercise reasonable care in designing, manufacturing, or supplying 

unsafe asbestos-containing products or asbestos-containing equipment instead of substitute 

materials; or

 Fifth, failing to safely direct work over which the defendant retained some control of the 

safety of the work. 

 Plaintiffs further claim that one or more of the foregoing was a proximate cause of their 

injuries. 

[Defendant’s statement to be added]

Plaintiff’s Proposed Instruction No. 6

IPI 20.01 Issues Made By The Pleadings–Negligence–One Or More Defendants 

Agreed: ____ Disputed: ____ Agreed with modifications: ____

Given: ____ Refused: ____ Given with modifications: ____

Corresponds with: ____N/A________

Case: 1:12-cv-00596 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/28/16 Page 5 of 18 PageID #:4724
6

Plaintiffs have 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 plaintiffs

as stated to you in these instructions and that in so acting, or failing to act, the defendant was 

negligent; 

 Second, that the plaintiffs were injured; 

 Third, that the negligence of the defendant was a proximate cause of the injury to the 

plaintiffs.

 If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any of these propositions has 

not been proved, then your verdict shall be for the defendant. 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's claim that the plaintiffs were contributorily negligent. 

 As to that claim, the defendant has the burden of proving both of the following 

propositions: 

 A: That the plaintiffs acted or failed to act in one of the ways claimed by the defendant as 

stated to you in these instructions and that in so acting, or failing to act, the plaintiffs were 

negligent; 

 B: That the plaintiffs’ negligence was a proximate cause of their injury;

 If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the plaintiffs have proved all the 

propositions required of the plaintiffs and that the defendant has not proved both of the 

propositions required of the defendant, then your verdict shall be for the plaintiffs and you shall 

not reduce plaintiffs’ damages. 

 If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the defendant has proved both 

of the propositions required of the defendant, and if you find that the plaintiffs’ contributory 

negligence was more than 50% of the total proximate cause of the injury or damage for which 

recovery is sought, then your verdict shall be for the defendant. 

 If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the plaintiffs have proved all the 

propositions required of the plaintiffs and that the defendant has proved both of the propositions 

required of the defendant, and if you find that the plaintiffs’ contributory negligence was 50% or less 

of the total proximate cause of the injury or damage for which recovery is sought, then your verdict 

shall be for the plaintiffs and you shall reduce the plaintiffs’ damages in the manner stated to you in 

these instructions. 

Plaintiff’s Proposed Instruction No. 8

IPI B 21.02 Burden of Proof on the Issues--Negligence— One Plaintiff and One Defendant—

Contributory Negligence an Issue

Agreed: ____ Disputed: ____ Agreed with modifications: ____

Given: ____ Refused: ____ Given with modifications: ____

Corresponds with: ____CBS # 30________

Case: 1:12-cv-00596 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/28/16 Page 6 of 18 PageID #:4725
7

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 estate of Frank Pehlke for any of the 

following elements of damages proved by the evidence to have resulted from the negligence of 

the defendants, taking into consideration the nature, extent and duration of the injury.

Loss of a normal life experienced 

Shortened life expectancy.

Pain and suffering experienced as a result of the injuries.

Emotional distress experienced.

Reasonable expense of necessary medical care, treatment, and services received.

Whether any of these elements of damages has been proved by the evidence is for you to 

determine. 

Plaintiff’s Proposed Instruction No. 9

IPI 31.10 Damages –Survival Action (Estate of Frank Pehlke)

Agreed: ____ Disputed: ____ Agreed with modifications: ____

Given: ____ Refused: ____ Given with modifications: ____

Corresponds with: ____CBS #49________

Case: 1:12-cv-00596 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/28/16 Page 7 of 18 PageID #:4726
8

If you find for the plaintiffs, then in assessing damages on the claim by Luella Pehlke you 

may consider how long Luella Pehlke will be likely to sustain pecuniary losses as a result of Frank 

Pehlke's death, considering how long Frank Pehlke was likely to have lived and how long Luella 

Pehlke is likely to live. 

According to a table of mortality in evidence, the life expectancy of a female person aged 74 

years is 13.5 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 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 society are not reduced to present cash value.

Plaintiff’s Proposed Instruction No. 12

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

Agreed: ____ Disputed: ____ Agreed with modifications: ____

Given: ____ Refused: ____ Given with modifications: ____

Corresponds with: ____ CBS # 48________

Case: 1:12-cv-00596 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/28/16 Page 8 of 18 PageID #:4727
9

If you find that decedent contributed to the total proximate cause of the death of the decedent 

you shall determine the percentage of contributory negligence of decedent. 

If you find that the contributory negligence of the decedent was more than 50% of the total 

proximate cause of the death of the decedent, then you shall enter a verdict in favor of the 

defendant(s). If you find that the contributory negligence of the decedent was 50% or less of the total 

proximate cause of the death of the decedent, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff and you 

will reduce damages in the manner stated in the instructions.

Plaintiff’s Proposed Instruction No. 13

IPI B31.08 Damages--Wrongful Death--Contributory Fault--Decedent 

Agreed: ____ Disputed: ____ Agreed with modifications: ____

Given: ____ Refused: ____ Given with modifications: ____

Corresponds with: ____N/A________

Case: 1:12-cv-00596 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/28/16 Page 9 of 18 PageID #:4728
10

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 for each claim are supplied with these instructions. After you have 

reached your verdicts, fill in and sign the appropriate forms and return them to the court. Your 

verdicts 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 

Plaintiffs: The Estate of Frank Pehlke and the lineal next of kin - Luella Pehlke, LuAnn Jones, 

Lynette Roberts, Ronald Pehlke, Roger Pehlke, Laurene Adlington, Larissa Leiker, and Lenora 

Pehlke.

Defendant: CBS Corporation as successor to Westinghouse Corporation 

If you find for the Estate of Frank Pehlke and against CBS/Westinghouse and if you 

further find that the Estate of Frank Pehlke was not contributorily negligent, then you should use 

Verdict Form A, writing in “0%” on Line “(a)” of Paragraph “Second” of Verdict Form A. 

If you find for Luella Pehlke and/or other lineal next of kin and against 

CBS/Westinghouse and if you further find that Frank Pehlke was not contributorily negligent, 

then you should use Verdict Form A2, writing in “0%” on Line “(a)” of Paragraph “Second” of 

Verdict Form A2.

If you find for the Estate of Frank Pehlke and against CBS/Westinghouse and if you 

further find that the Estate of Frank Pehlke’s injury was proximately caused by a combination of 

the negligence of CBS/Westinghouse and Frank Pehlke’s contributory negligence, and that 

Frank Pehlke’s contributory negligence was 50% or less of total proximate cause of the injury or 

damage for which recovery is sought, then you should use Verdict Form A, writing in the 

percentage of the Frank Pehlke’s contributory negligence on Line “(a)” of Paragraph “Second” 

of Verdict Form A. 

If you find for Luella Pehlke and other lineal next of kin and against CBS/Westinghouse 

and if you further find that lineal next of kin’s injury was proximately caused by a combination 

of the negligence of CBS/Westinghouse and Frank Pehlke’s contributory negligence, and that 

Frank Pehlke’s contributory negligence was 50% or less of total proximate cause of the injury or 

damage for which recovery is sought, then you should use Verdict Form A2, writing in the 

percentage of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence on Line “(a)” of Paragraph “Second” of 

Verdict Form A2. 

If you find in favor of defendant as to liability for negligence or that Frank Pehlke’s 

contributory negligence was more than 50% of the total proximate cause of the injury or damage 

for which recovery is sought, then you should use Verdict Form B.

Case: 1:12-cv-00596 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/28/16 Page 10 of 18 PageID #:4729
11

Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 14

IPI B45.03 Instruction on Use of Verdict Forms Negligence Only--Single Plaintiff and Multiple 

Claimed Tortfeasors – comparative negligence and verdict forms B45.03.A and B (Modified)

Agreed: ____ Disputed: ____ Agreed with modifications: ____

Given: ____ Refused: ____ Given with modifications: ____

Corresponds with: ___CBS_# 53________

Case: 1:12-cv-00596 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/28/16 Page 11 of 18 PageID #:4730
12

VERDICT FORM A

We, the jury, find for the Estate of Frank Pehlke and against CBS/Westinghouse and further find 

the following:

First: Without taking into consideration the question of reduction of 

damages due to the negligence of Frank Pehlke or the legal responsibility 

of other entities, we find that the total amount of damages suffered by the 

Estate of Frank Pehlke as a proximate result of the occurrence in question 

is $________________

itemized as follows: 

The loss of a normal life experienced: $_________________ 

Shortened life expectancy: $_________________

The pain and suffering experienced as a result of the injuries: $_________________ 

The emotional distress experienced: $_________________ 

The reasonable expense of necessary medical care, 

treatment, and services received: $_________________

PLAINTIFF'S TOTAL DAMAGES: $_________________

Second: Assuming that 100% represents the total combined legal responsibility of all entities that 

proximately caused the Estate of Frank Pehlke’s injury, we find the percentage of legal 

responsibility attributable to each as follows:

a) Frank Pehlke ________________% 

b) CBS/Westinghouse ________________% 

c) Other ________________% 

Third: After reducing plaintiff’s total damages from paragraph First by the percentage of 

negligence attributable, if any, of Frank Pehlke in paragraph Second, we award the Estate of 

Frank Pehlke recoverable damages in the amount of $________________ .

_______________________________ ______________________________

Case: 1:12-cv-00596 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/28/16 Page 12 of 18 PageID #:4731
13

_______________________________ ______________________________

_______________________________ ______________________________

_______________________________ ______________________________

_______________________________ ______________________________

_______________________________ ______________________________

Plaintiffs’ Proposed Instruction No. 15

IPI B45.03.A Verdict Form A (The Estate of Frank Pehlke) - Single Plaintiff claimed multiple 

tortfeasors

Agreed: ____ Disputed: ____ Agreed with modifications: ____

Given: ____ Refused: ____ Given with modifications: ____

Corresponds with: ___CBS_# 53________

Case: 1:12-cv-00596 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/28/16 Page 13 of 18 PageID #:4732
14

VERDICT FORM A2

We, the jury, find for Luella Pehlke and the children of Frank Pehlke (lineal next of kin) and 

against CBS/Westinghouse and further find the following:

First: Without taking into consideration the question of reduction of 

damages due to the negligence of Frank Pehlke or legal responsibility 

of other entities, we find that the total amount of damages suffered 

by Frank Pehlke as a proximate result of the occurrence in question is $________________

itemized as follows: 

Luella Pehlke - Loss of society: $_________________ 

 Loss of money, benefits, and services: $_________________

LuAnn Jones - Loss of society: $_________________

Lynette Roberts - Loss of society: $_________________ 

Ronald Pehlke - Loss of society: $_________________ 

Roger Pehlke - Loss of society: $_________________ 

Laurene Adlington - Loss of society: $_________________ 

Larissa Leiker - Loss of society: $_________________ 

Lenora Pehlke - Loss of society: $_________________ 

LINEAL HEIRS’ TOTAL DAMAGES: $_________________

Second: Assuming that 100% represents the total combined legal responsibility of all entities that 

proximately caused injury to the lineal next of kin, we find the percentage of legal responsibility 

attributable to each as follows:

a) Frank Pehlke ________________% 

b) CBS/Westinghouse ________________% 

c) Other ________________% 

Third: After reducing plaintiff’s total damages from paragraph First by the percentage of 

negligence attributable, if any, of the lineal next of kin in paragraph Second, we award the lineal 

next of kin recoverable damages in the amount of $________________ .

Case: 1:12-cv-00596 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/28/16 Page 14 of 18 PageID #:4733
15

_______________________________ ______________________________

_______________________________ ______________________________

_______________________________ ______________________________

_______________________________ ______________________________

_______________________________ ______________________________

Plaintiffs’ Proposed Instruction No. 16

I.P.I. B45.03.A Verdict Form A2 (Lineal next of kin) - Single Plaintiff claimed multiple 

tortfeasors

Agreed: ____ Disputed: ____ Agreed with modifications: ____

Given: ____ Refused: ____ Given with modifications: ____

Corresponds with: ___CBS_# 53________

Case: 1:12-cv-00596 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/28/16 Page 15 of 18 PageID #:4734
16

VERDICT FORM B

We, the jury, find for the defendant CBS/Westinghouse and against the plaintiffs. 

_______________________________ ______________________________

_______________________________ ______________________________

_______________________________ ______________________________

_______________________________ ______________________________

_______________________________ ______________________________

_______________________________ ______________________________

Plaintiffs Proposed Instruction No. 17

IPI B45.03.B Verdict Form B Single Plaintiff and Defendant - Contributory Negligence - More 

than 50% (modified for multiple Plaintiffs and one defendant) 

Agreed: ____ Disputed: ____ Agreed with modifications: ____

Given: ____ Refused: ____ Given with modifications: ___

Corresponds with: ___CBS_# 53________

Case: 1:12-cv-00596 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/28/16 Page 16 of 18 PageID #:4735
17

Dated: September 28, 2016

_/s/ Daniel B. Hausman___________

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Daniel B. Hausman

Robert G. McCoy

Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd.

220 South Ashland Ave.

Chicago, IL 60607

(312) 944-0600

(312) 944-1870 (fax)

dhausman@cvlo.com

Case: 1:12-cv-00596 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/28/16 Page 17 of 18 PageID #:4736
18

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on September 28, 2016, I caused the forgoing to be electronically filed with 

the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois using the CM/ECF system 

which will automatically send all necessary notifications of this filing to CM/ECF participants in 

this case.

Dated: September 28, 2016

_/s/ Daniel B. Hausman___________

Attorney for Plaintiff

Daniel B. Hausman

Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd.

220 South Ashland Ave.

Chicago, IL 60607

(312) 944-0600

(312) 944-1870 (fax)

dhausman@cvlo.com

Case: 1:12-cv-00596 Document #: 134 Filed: 09/28/16 Page 18 of 18 PageID #:4737