THIRD DIVISION January 27, 2010

Nos. 1-0 8-360 5 & 1 -08-36 06 (Cons.) GE RALDI NE NE W, ) A ppe al f rom the Ci rcu i t Cou rt of ) Coo k Count y, Ill

in ois. Plai ntif f-A ppel le e, ) ) v. ) ) PA CE S UB UR

BA N B US S ERV

ICE , a D i vi si on of ) Regi onal Tran si t Authority

, a mun icip al ) co rp or at ion, ) ) De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. )

_________________________________________ ) ) No. 05 L 2011 GE RALDI NE NE W, ) ) Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, )

) v. ) ) PA CE S UB UR

BA N B US S ERV

ICE , a D i vi si on of ) Regi onal Tran si t Authority

, a mun icip al ) co rp or at ion, ) ) Ho no r ab le J ame s P . Mc Ca r t hy, Defe ndan t-Appell ee. ) Judge Presidin g.

PR ESI DI NG JU STI CEMU

RP HY de l i v er ed th e op i n i on of th e c our t: These co nsolidated ap peals arise from pro ceedings under p lai ntiff Geraldine New’s February 18, 2005, sin

gle -count personal i

nj ury com pla in t again st defen

dant Pace Suburba

n Bus Service. Plai

ntif f sought damages for in

juries all egedly sustained to her back whil e she was a pa ss en ge ro n d efe nd an t ’s bu s o n Ma r ch 4, 20 04
. Pla int iff cla imed t he bu s s t o pp ed su dd en lyNos. 1-0 8-360 5 & 1 -08-36 06 (Cons.)

2

forci ng he r to fal l i nto a pole and to the ground. She all eged that this caus ed seri ous in jury to her back re quir ing ext ensive t re at ment. Plaint iff alleged t hat t he su dde n st op was due t o t he
ne glig en ce an d o miss io ns o f de fen da nt ’s bu s d r ive r . Fo llo win g a t r ial, t he jur y ent er ed a v er dic t in f av or of de f

endan t on Au gust 1, 2 008. Plaint iff app eals t he t rial co ur t ’s de nial of her mot ions fo r jud gment not wit hst anding t he
v erdi ct ( n.o.v. ) and a n

ew trial as w el l as prese nti ng th ree issues wi

th res pect to the j ury i ns truc ti ons gi ve n a t tri al . De f

en da nt a ppe al s th e tri al cou rt’ s g ran t of pl ai nti f f ’s pe ti ti on f or attorn ey f ee s a nd cos ts, a moun ti ng to ap prox

i mate l y $17 ,00 0, r el

ate d to the d ep osi

ti on of de fend ant ’s fir st dis clo se d me dic al e xpe rt , w ho “r es igne d” fro m t he c as e o nly aft er pla int iff
ex pe nd ed ti me a nd f un dson h i s dep osi ti on. For the f ol l owi ng rea sons, we a f

f i rm the rul i ng s of th e tr i al cou rt. I. BACKG ROUND A. D isco ver y, Pr et rial Mo t ions a nd S anct ions Plai ntif f al le ged i n he r complai nt that o n March

4, 2004, she was a pas senger on a b us ow ned a nd o per at ed by de fendant . T he bus was t ra veling eas t bou nd o n West 79t h St re et in the City o f Bur bank, Illinois, w hen t he dr iver br ake d hea vily , c aus ing t he bus t o c ome t o a sud den, har d st op . As a re sult , p laintiff fell and s ust ained p er so nal injuries. Plaint iff alleged t hat t he b ra ki n g w as ex ce ss i v e a n d c au se d b

y th e d ri v er ’s n eg l i gen ce

an d f ai l ur e to k ee p a pr ope r l ookou t. During the course o f di scovery, defendan t answered plain

tiff ’s Rul e 213 (210 Ill . 2d R. 213 ) i nte rrog atori eswi th i ts d i sc l osu re of wi tne ss esi n J an ua ry 200 7, a men di ng tha t res pon se on Dec ember 1 1, 200 7. In bo t h fil ings, defend ant disclo sed Dr . T er ry Licht or , a physician pr act icingNos. 1-0 8-360 5 & 1 -08-36 06 (Cons.)

3

at Rus h-P re sbyte rian- St . Lu ke’ s Med ical Cent er , a s its co nt ro lled expe rt wit ness r ega rd ing dam ages. Def

endan t stat ed that it expected Li chtor t o t estif

y tha t plai ntif f’ s back pai

n was rel ated to a chronic degenerative condi tion and not a r esult of her fal l on the bus. Plai nti f f f i l ed a n oti ceof depos i ti on of Li ch tor on Oc tobe r 26 , 20 07, f

or hi s dep osi

ti on on Novem ber 27, 2007. In a documen t rider to t he n

ot ic e, plai ntif f requested pro duction of v arious do cu men t s by N o ve mbe r20 , 20 07 , inc lud ing co pie s o f do cu men t s L ich t o rr elie d o n in fo r ming his op inion. O n No vember 2 , 2 007 , p laintiff issued a subp oe na t o L ichto r, re que st ing feder al and st at e t ax r et ur ns, all W- 2 a nd 10 99 inc o me t ax fo r ms, an d a ll co mpu t er de vic es co nt ain ing his in come tax i

nf ormation f

rom 2004 to t he date of the sub poena. The deposi

tion was resch

edul ed
an d pl ai nti f f f i l ed a re noti ceof depos i ti on of Li ch tor on De ce m be r 19 , 20 07, f

or hi s dep osi

ti on on Ja nu ar y 17 , 20 08
. T he r en o t ice inc lud ed an ame nd ed de po sit io n r ide rr eq ue st ing t he sa me do cument s as w ell as t he t ax infor matio n. Li ch tor ap pe are d f or hi s dep osi

ti on on Ja nu ary 17, 200 8, h

av i ng onl y prov i de d c opiesof h i s 1 09 9 f orm s. W h en qu esti on ed

b y pl ai n ti f f ’s cou n se l , L i ch tor i n di ca ted th at h e r ef us ed to produce any

addi tional tax in form ation. He stated that it was hi s understandi ng that pla

in tif f was only ent itled t o k now what he made fro m legal co nsult ing and if he wa s re quir ed t o p ro duc e t he t ax do cument s he w ou ld re sign fro m the c ase . Aft er plaint iff ’s co unse l fi

nished q ues t ioning Li chtor, and bef

ore defens e counsel

asked any

questions, h

e ann ounced that he was resi

gni ng as an exp er t and e nded t he de po sitio n. On Ja n ua ry 29 , 20 08 , pl

ai n ti f f mov ed to b ar Li ch tor a s a n ex pert b as ed

on h i s f ai l ur e to di sc l ose hi s ta x d ocu men ts. P l ai nti f f al so s ough

t attorn ey f ee s a nd cos ts re l ate d to the d ep osi ti onNos. 1-0 8-360 5 & 1 -08-36 06 (Cons.)

4

un de r Su pre me C ourt R

ule 2 19( c). 210

Il l . 2d R. 2 19( c). Ba se d on

Li ch tor’ s l ac k of coop era ti on with b ot h parties , defen

dant move d on February

5, 2008, for leav

e to amend i

ts Rule 213(f

) (210 Il l . 2d R. 2 13(f

)) di scl osures to remove D r. Li

ch tor and to di scl

ose a n ew ex pert. The tri al

court h ea rd argu men t on th e m oti on s on Fe b ru ar y 14 , 20 08 , a

n d g ra n ted b oth moti on s wi

th re sp ec t to Licht or . I n add itio n, p laintiff was g ra nt ed lea ve t o p et itio n for at t or ney time r elat ed t o t he depositi on of Li

chtor. T he case

proceeded to trial

on Jul y 28, 2008, an

d on Jul y 29, 2008, plaint iff pr ese nt ed he r p et itio n for at t or ney fees a nd co st s re late d t o L ichto r’s dep os itio n. T he court he ard ar

gum en t on the p eti

tion f oll owi ng tri al
. B. Trial Testim ony a nd Verdict At trial , plai

ntif f testif ie d to the even

ts of March 4, 2004, that all egedl y c aused the i

nj uries at t he bas is of her co mplaint. Plaint iff t est ifi ed t hat she lived in Bu rba nk, Illinois, a nd t hat she does n ot driv e. Pl ai ntif f typ i cal l y takesthe b

us, wa l ks or has a

f am i l y mem ber dri ve her to pla

ces . On the m ornin g of March

4, 2004, plai

ntif f took a bus operated by def endan t t o t he Ch

ic ago Ri dge Mal

l i n the Vi ll age of Ch ic ago Ridge. Plai

ntif f s hopped and ate l

unch at the mal

l a nd at approx i mate l y 1:3 0 p. m ., s he

boa rde d de f en da nt’ s R oute384 bu s. The 384 bu s tra ve l ed nor th on Sout h Ri dgel and A

ven ue and South Narragansett Aven ue and on to eastbound 79 th Street toward pla int iff’s s t o p a t Wes t 79 t h S t re et and So ut h La ra mie Ave nue in Bu rb ank , I llinois . P laint iff walked t owa rd t he back of t he bus and sat in the aisl e seat of the first r ow o f seats o n the dr iver’s side th at f ace d the f ront of the b us. P lain t iff t es t ifie d t ha t t he we at he rwa s mis t y an d t he r o ad s a lso ap pe ar ed “a lit t le mi st y, t oo .” Plaint iff

sat and lo ok ed o ut t he windo w as t he bus t ra veled in t he r ight -ha nd lane o f theNos. 1-0 8-360 5 & 1 -08-36 06 (Cons.)

5

fo ur - lan e 7 9t h S t r ee t . Pla int iff t es t ified t ha t she felt t ha t t he bu s s t ar t ed go ing fas t er an d fa st er in
an un us ua l mann er . Pla int iff did no t o bse r ve an y veh icle s in t he left lan e o ran y veh icle pa ss ing in fro nt of t he bus . T hou gh she did no t kno w t he sp eed of t he bus and c ou ld no t see t he sp ee dom ete r or t ra f f i c i n f ron t of th e b us , s h e f el t th e d ri v er wa s g oi n g too f ast so sh e dec i de d to get up to pull

the buzzer cord. Faci

ng the wi ndows on the left of the b us, plai ntif f start ed to get up t o p ull the buzz er co rd and t he bus st op ped abr upt ly. Plaintiff “flew all the w ay acr os s” t he bu s a nd int o a p o le a nd t he n o nt o t he flo o r . Alt ho ug h t he r e w er e p o les an d h an dl e s ling s n ea r by, pl ai ntif f , wh o is f i ve f eet tal l , stated that she coul

d not rea ch thes e ai ds a nd r eache d f or the cord wi thout hol di ng a ny thi ng. P lain t iff t es t ifie d t ha t t he bu s c o nt inu ed o n fo ra w hile as sh e la y o n t he flo o r . E ve nt ua lly a passen ger on the bus y

el le d to the bus dri

ver that she was

on the fl oor and the b

us driv er pull ed over. When

the bus dri

ver wal ked up to her t o check on her, plai ntif f was cryi ng. Wh en h e asked if plai ntif f was i nj ured, she respo nded that she was in pai n, but t old the bus driver that she just wanted to go home . The driv er walke d back up to the front, then returned to pla in tif f an d asked if she want ed a n ambulance . An a mbulance w as c alled and plaint iff was t ra nspo rt ed t o t he hospi tal. At the hospi

tal, X-ray s were taken an d pla in tif f was giv en pai n m edi cation b efore a
mem b er of h er f am i l y pi cked h er up an d took h er h om e i n th e ev en i n g. P l ai n ti f f th en testi f i ed to her in juries and treat men

ts. Ryan Sc humache r, t he pa sseng er who informed t he bus dr iver t hat plaint iff had fallen, testifi ed nex t. Schumach

er, 25 years ol

d at the time

of trial , testifi

ed that he al so boarded the bus
near t he Chica go Ridge Mall. He sat in the w indo w se at of t he se co nd r ow of se at s behind t heNos. 1-0 8-360 5 & 1 -08-36 06 (Cons.)

6

b en ch se ats on th e p as se n ger s i de of th e b us . Sc h um ach er testi f i ed th at th e w ea th er wa s c ool wi th temperatures i

n the 40s an

d that it had rai

ned off and on that day , but the pavem ent did n ot appear wet. Sch

um ac he r testi f i ed tha t the bu s ri dewa s smooth a

nd , pri or to th e a cc i de nt, he di d n ot not ice any har d br aking. The bus a ppe ar ed t o be t ra veling at a no rmal and safe sp eed , t hou gh he testifi ed i t may have been

traveli ng a tad above the posted speed l im it of 35. Becaus e he was da ydr ea ming fo rmo st o f his r ide an d g ive n t he lap se o f t ime fr o m t he da t e o f t he ac cid en t an d h is tes ti m ony , Sc hu mac he r testi f i ed tha t he wa s u nc l ea r on ex ac t de tai l s of the bu s ri de . He

coul d n ot say whet her ot her car s we re pas sing t he bus or in front of t he bus at or near t he t ime of t he accident. Schum

acher testif

ie d that he fel

t t he b us brake sh

arply righ t before plai

ntif f f el l. He testi f i ed th at wh en

the b us stopped, h

i s b ody l ung ed f orward a nd h e hi t the se at i

n f ront of hi m . Sc hu mac he rt es t ified t ha t pla int iff wa s s it t ing at t ha t t ime a ndhe sa w h er fall. Th e d ri ve r of the bu s, Thom

asK wi dd, tes ti f i ed ne xt. K wi dd, a 5 7-y

ea r-ol d re si de nt of Burban k, Ill in ois, at the tim

e of trial, testifi

ed that he had b een a b

us driv er for defe

ndan t sin ce 1997. Kwidd testifi

ed to t he ex

tensi ve 1 1/2-m

onth traini

ng program h

e compl eted, which included classr oo m instr uct ion and on- t he- job inst ru ct ion. Afte r su ffi cient classr oo m and dr iving time, if a dri

ver passes test s on each area, he then must pass the commerci al dri vers li cense test adm in is tered by the Il

li nois Secretary of State’s off

ic e. K wi dd , a n i n str uc tor i n de f en da n t’s trai n i n g p rogra m at th e ti me of trial , te sti

f i ed th at dri vers are taugh t the duti es a nd r esp onsi bi l i tie s of a dri ver to ensure th e saf

ety of the pas sen

gers and that, as professi

onal driv ers, they a

re hel d to a hi gher standard than

ot her dri vers. HeNos. 1-0 8-360 5 & 1 -08-36 06 (Cons.)

7

ex pl ai ne d tha t dri vers are trai ne d to watch

f or, and be awar e, of ev ery thi ng a round the b us. K wi dd te sti f i ed tha t i t i s n ec es sa ry to ex pe ct the u ne xp ec ted , pa

rti cul arl y f rom traf f i c c om i ng on the l ef t si deof the bu s. Thi s tra i ni ng wa s devel

ope d to prep are

dri ve rs to avoi d the n

ee d f or evasi ve action in

situations that might cause i nj ury to passengers. Kwi dd testifi ed that he had of

ten driv en the route he was ass ign ed to o n March

4, 2004, and t hat he wa s famili

ar wit h t he r oa ds. He s t at ed t hat it w as c lou dy at t he t ime of t he incident
an d that the roa

dswe re d ry . K wi dd te sti f i ed tha t he mai nta i ne d c ons tan t wa tch on tr af f i c a nd f or any pas seng er s wa nt ing t o bo ar d o r d epa rt t he bus . As w as no rmal, ve hicles re gular ly passed t he bus i n the lef t pass i ng l ane as Kwi dd m ai ntai ne d a s peed of 3 0 to 35 m

i l es p er hour. Pr ior t o t he incident , Kw idd no t iced a vehicle ap pr oa ching t he bus in the left pas sing lane at a fa st sp ee d. Kw idd be lieve d t he sp ee d o f t he ap pr o ac hing ve hic le s ug ge st ed , ba se d o n his
ex peri ence, that there

wasa 90% c

ha nc e the dri ver i nten ded to try to get in f ront of the b us. In
re spo nse, Kwidd c ove re d t he br ake ped al at abo ut t he sa me time t he vehicle r eac hed t he bus and “cut righ t in f ront” o f the b

us, mi ssi ng the b us by approxim

ately 18 in ches. K widd testi fi

ed that he de pr es se d t he br ak e p ed al t o ba ck o ff fr o m t he ve hic le, bu t t he ve hic le t he n st o pp ed su dd en ly to turn an d K widd had to push

the b rake p edal

ha rder to stop the

bus
. Kwidd o pined t hat t he pr essu re app lied wo uld be c ons ider ed a “hard ” br ake by de fen da nt ’s st an da r ds o r“sla mming o n t he br ak es ” in lay t er ms. Ho we ve r , Kw idd o pin ed t ha t his action was reas onabl

e and n ecessary to avoi d a coll

is ion. K widd testi fi

ed that he then conti

nued on hi s route. Bef

ore t ravel in g to o far, a passen

ger cal le d from

the back of

the bus that anotherNos. 1-0 8-360 5 & 1 -08-36 06 (Cons.)

8

passen ger had f al le n an d was on the f

loor of the bus. K

widd testi fi

ed that he pulle d the bus over
and sa w pl ai ntif f l y i ng on the f l oor of the

bus . Kwi dd ca

l l ed f or me di cal

attenti on at thi s ti me. On cross -e x am

i n ati on , K wi dd wa s c on f ron ted wi th th e state men t h e g av e th e s af ety
man ge r at h i s g ara geroug hl y two hours

af ter th e i nc i de nt a s w el

l ashi s te sti mony f rom two pr i or dep os itio ns by the par t ies. F or his st at ement , Kw idd t est ifi ed t hat he r elayed w hat happ ened and what he did t o t he manag er , w ho p ut a su mmary in writing. He s t at ed t hat he felt t he st at ement looked correct and si

gned i t. Co unsel

hi ghl igh ted that his stateme

nt dif fered f rom his testim

ony a t t r ial be ca us e h e s aid in his st at eme nt t ha t he firs t ap plie d t he br ak e w he n t he ve hic le w as en t ire ly in the la ne i n f ront o f h im . Addi tional ly , Kwidd stated in h

is depositi on that his

fi rst ini tial brake
was har d and t he se co nd pu sh wa s so ft a s o ppo sed t o t rial wher e he s t at ed he pus hed ha rd on t he second brake pus

h to brin g the veh ic le to a stop. The par t ies re st ed a nd evide nce w as c lose d. Defend ant moved for dire ct ed ve rd ict a nd t he t rial co ur t denied t hat mot ion. Fo llowing clo sing ar gument s, t he co ur t re ad t he inst ru ct ions t o t he j ury and the j ury returned a j udgm

en t in f av or of de f

endan t. C. Pos ttri

al Mot i on s a

n d A rgum en ts On A ug us t 26 , 20 08 , pl

ai n ti f f f i l ed a p ost trial moti on f or j udgm en t n.o.v. or , in t he alte rna t ive, fo r a new t rial. P laintiff argu ed t hat t he jur y verd ict w as a gainst t he manifest weight of the evidence and t he tr ial cou rt erre d in i

nstru cting t he jury. At the hear ing on plai ntiff ’s
m oti on , the tr

i al cou rt al so h ea rd argu men t on pl ai n ti f f ’s pe ti ti on f or a ttorn ey f ee s a n d c ost s pu rs ua n t to th e c our

t’s pr etr i al ord er . Th

e c our t den i ed pl ai n ti f f ’s moti on f or j udgm en t n.o.v. , but granted her pet ition f

or fees and cost s.Nos. 1-0 8-360 5 & 1 -08-36 06 (Cons.)

9

The trial court determi

ned that based on L

ic htor’s extensi

ve ex perien ce testif yi ng, he h ad kno wledg e as t o w hat he wo uld be r equ ired t o p ro duc e. Fur t her , t he co ur t fou nd t hat defend ant wasadv i sed that Li ch tor had re f

use d to produce th

i s i nf orma tion and woul d con tin ue to do so. The court also found that def endan t had every

oppor tunity

to withdraw Lic

htor earli er or co ntact pla in tif f b efore she expen

ded resources preparin

g for the deposition. The trial court opine d that

“ to m ake R ul e 2 19 (c ) a f ul l y mea n i n gf ul re qui re men t of con du ct * ** pl

ai n ti f f i s e n ti tl ed to recovery of

fees and costs that could hav

e been prevented b

y m erely a phone cal

l.” Thes e a pp ea l s f ol l owe d. P l ai

n ti f f argu es th at th e tr i al cou rt e rre d i n f ai l i n g to d i re ct a
v erdi ct a n d d en y i n g h er moti on f or j udgm en t n.o.v. Sh e a lso co nt en ds t ha t t he co ur t er r ed in instruct ing the jury. Defendant’s appe al i nvolves only

the single i ssue o f whether t he tr ial cou rt ’s gr an t of attor n ey f ee s a n d c ost s a s a

sa n cti on wa s prop er . We f

i rs t con si der p l ai n ti f f ’s argu men ts bef ore t urnin g to the grant of fees an

d cost s. II. AN AL YSIS A . Pl ai n ti f f ’s Mot i on s f

or J udgm en t N.O. V. and New Trial Plai ntif f as serts in

her f irst two arguments that the trial court erred in

fai li ng to enter j udgm en t n.o.v. an d f or a n ew trial . J udgm en t n.o.v is pro per when, viewing t he evide nce in a l i ght m ost fa vorab l e to the n

onm ovi ng p arty , i

t so overw

he l m i ngl y f av ors the movan t that ther e wasa total

f ail ure or l ack of evi den ce to prove

a nece ssa ry elem en t. Razor v. Hyundai Motor America , 222 I ll . 2d 75, 106 (200 6). Fact ual determi nations m ade at t rial

wil l stand unl

ess contrar y to the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. North Avenue Proper ties, L.L.C. v. Z oning Board of Appeals , 312 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 18 2, 184 ( 2000) . A re vi ewi ng c ourt wi l l

not set a side a j uryNos. 1-0 8-360 5 & 1 -08-36 06 (Cons.)

10

verdict unl ess

the opp osi

te conc l usi on i s rea dil y appa ren t or it app ears

the j ury ’sf

i ndi ngs are arb i trary , unr eas onab l e, or un sub stan

tia ted b y the evi den ce. Johnso n v. Chica

go Trans it Authority , 248 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 91 , 94 (19 93). The stan da rd f or en try of a j udgm en t n.o.v. is h

igh and this court r evi ews de novo a deni al of s uch a m otion
. York v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center , 222 Ill . 2d 147, 178 (2 00 6) . J udgm en t n.o.v. wil

l n ot be granted merely

because a verdict i s against t he m ani fest wei ght of the e vi den ce. Maple v. Gustafson , 151 Ill . 2d 445, 453 (1992). If a sub stantial factual di sputei s f

oun d or th e verd i ct h i ng eson th

e j ury ’s cre di bi l i ty de term i na ti on, de ni al of a m oti on f or j udgm en t n.o.v i s prope

r. Maple , 15 1 I ll. 2 d a t 45 4. T he ev ide nc e mu st be vie we d w it h a ll
r ea so na ble infe r en ce s in fa vo ro f t he o pp o ne nt , an d w e ma y up ho ld a de cis io n o n a ny ba sis appe ari ng i n the rec ord. Arangold Corp. v. Zehnder , 187 Il l . 2d 341 , 359-6 0 (199 9). I n o r de rt o r ev er se t he de nia l o f a mo t io n fo rne w t r ial, t his c o ur t mus t find t he ve r dic t is contrar y to the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce a nd th e tri al court ab use d i ts di scre tion
. York

, 222 Ill. 2d at 1 78. T his requires a fi nding that t he opp osite c onclusion is clearly evi dent o r t he jury’s f i ndi ngs are a rbi trary , unr eas onab l e, or not b ase d upon an y evi den ce a t trial
. York

, 222 Ill . 2d at 178-79. Agai

n, resoluti on of conf

li cts in testim ony a nd credi bi li ty determi

nations are the provin

ce of the f act f i nde r at tri al
. York

, 222 Ill . 2d at 179. A com mon c arrier i s not an i

nsurer of the ab solute saf ety of i ts passengers, b

ut it does have the hei

ghtened duty

to exerci se the hi

ghest degree of care cons is tent with the practica

l operation of

i ts conv ey ances to protect its p ass engers . Brow ne v. Chicago Trans it Authority , 19 Ill . A pp. 3d 9 14, 917(19 74) . A reb uttabl e p res

um ption of ne gl i ge nc e i s r ai se d a gai

ns t a c om monNos. 1-0 8-360 5 & 1 -08-36 06 (Cons.)

11

carrier wh

en a pl ai ntif f s hows that she was a

passen ger, an acci

dent happen

ed wi th an apparatus wh oll y und er the control of the ca rri er, an d tha t an i nj ury wasi nf l i cted. Tolman v. Wieboldt Stores, Inc. , 38 I ll. 2 d 5 19 , 52 3 ( 19 67 )
. On ce t ha t pr es ump t io n is r ais ed , t he ca rr ier mus t ex pla in wh y the acci den t resul ted f rom a caus e f or whi ch i t shoul d not b e h eld res

pons i bl e. Tolman , 38 Il l . 2d at 52 3. Fo r bo t h of t hese issues , p laintiff cont ends t hat t he evide nce is u ndispu t ed s uch t hat t he jury did no t have t o w eigh differe nt ver sions of t he eve nt s t hat led t o d efenda nt ’s ac t ions c aus ing her to “fl y” in to a pole on the b

us, resul ting i n seri ous in juri es to her back. She also contends that the jury was not required to assess the credi bi li ty of the wi

tnesses. Theref

ore, plai ntif f concl udes th at, b ec au se

K wi dd ’s ac ti on s d i d n ot co m por t wi th th e h ei gh ten ed sta n da rd of ca reappl i ca b l e to com m on ca rri er s, a c on tra ry v erdi ct is c l ea rl y ev i den t an d j udgm en t n.ov. o ra n ew t r ial s ho uld have been granted. Pl ai n ti f f argu es th at Brow

ne sup po rt s her ar gument . I n Brow ne , the c our

t f oun d th at, despi te the bus dri

ver’s testi mony regardin g a si mi la r sudden stop, the verdic

t fi ndi ng the dri ver ex ercised the h i ghe st degr

ee of care wasagai nst the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. Brow ne , 19 Ill . App. 3d at 917-18. Plai ntif f as serts that because Kw idd’ s testim

ony regardi

ng the weather
wa s c ontr adi cte d by

pl ai nti f f ’s an d Sc hu mac he r’ s te sti mony an d h i s te sti mony ab out the ti

m i ng of his coveri ng th e brake a nd b raki ng was i m peac he d, Brow

ne su pp o r t s r ev er sa l. W e f i n d th e tr i al cou rt p rop erl y den i ed pl ai n ti f f s m oti on s f or j udgm en t n.o.v. and a n

ew t r ial. Co nt r ar y t o pla int iff’s pr es en t at io n o f t he fac t s a nd t he jur y’s find ing s, a c o nt r ar y ver dic t is not clear fro m the e vidence at t rial. T he jur y was r equ ired t o w eigh t he differe nt ver sions of t heNos. 1-0 8-360 5 & 1 -08-36 06 (Cons.)

12

i n ci den t pr es en ted b y pl ai n ti f f , Sc h um ach er an d K wi dd . L i kewi se , the j ur

y wa s req ui re d to
co nsider t he impeac hment o f key ar eas of t est imony. Plaint iff her self focu ses o n t he impeac hment of K wi dd , but s ti l l

mai n tai n s th e j ur y wa s n ot re qui re d to w ei

gh th e cre di b i l i ty of th e wi tn es se s to accept her version of the facts. Plain tiff ’s concluso ry argument r ejects all of this and the jury’s f indi ng that Kwidd’s
versi on of the i nc i den t was credi

bl e. Th e j ury

cons i dered

the testim

ony regar di ng th e wea ther,
ro ad c ond itio ns, t he sp eed of t he bus , a nd t he ac t ions o f the dr iver o f the vehicle t hat cut off t he bus . The ref ore, ques tions of f act an d cred i bi l i ty were de

term i ne d by the j ury and un der Maple
re j ec ti on of pl ai n ti f f ’s moti on f or j udgm en t n.o.v. wasproper. Th

e ev i den ce a cce pted b y the j ury wa s th at the roa dswe re n ot i n p oor con

di ti on, the bu s w astrav

el i ng wi thi n a rea son ab l e ra te of sp ee d, t he ve hic le c ut o ff t he bu s a nd t he n st o pp ed qu ick ly t o mak e a su dd en t ur n, an d t ha t t his
ac t io n c au se d K wid d t o br ak e h ar d. On ly Kwid d w it ne ss ed t he ac t io ns o f t he ve hic le a nd co uld testi f y to what occu

rred. Fur t her mor e, t he finding in Brow ne is d ist ing uis ha ble fr o m t his c as e. Un like t his c as e, in Brow ne , o ne wit ne ss o t he rt ha n t he bu s d r ive rt es t ified t o t he r ea so n fo rt he su dd en st o p. I n t his
cas e, neithe r p laintiff nor Schu macher was able t o t est ify re gar ding t he sp eed of t he bus , t he
ac t io ns o f t he dr ive rt ha t cu t o ff t he bu s, o rwh en o rwh y Kwid d b r ak ed
. T he jur y’s find ing is based on test im

ony that it det ermi

ned to be credib le. Vi ewin g all of the eviden

ce in a li ght most fav o r ab le t o de fen da nt , it ca nno t be sa id t he jur y ver dic t is s o ar bit r ar y o run r ea so na ble t ha t o nly an opp osite c onclusion is evi dent o r t hat t he tr ial

cou rt abused its discret ion in denyi ng plain tiff ’s
m otion f or a ne w tri al
.Nos. 1-0 8-360 5 & 1 -08-36 06 (Cons.)

13 B. Jur y Inst ru ct ions Pl ai ntif f rai ses three argum en ts ass erti ng th at the tri al court erred

i n i nstructi ng th e j ury . “In determ

in in g whether j ury i

nstructions were i

nadequate, this

court wil l rem and f or a new trial only if the trial court cl early

abused i ts discretion and prej udic e to a part y’ s righ t t o a fai r trial has been shown f rom the f ai lure to giv

e an i nstruction.” Yoder v. Fer guson , 381 Ill . App. 3d 353, 381 ( 20 08 )
. Lik ew ise , t he t r ial c o ur t ’s de t er minat io n a s t o wh at iss ue s a r e r ais ed by t he ev ide nc e w ill be di sturb ed onl

y i f the c ourt abu sed

i ts di scre tion
. Bryant v. LaGrange Memorial Hospital , 345 Ill . App. 3d 565, 573 (2003). A trial c ourt wil l b e reversed b ased on gi

vi ng an im proper i nstructi on onl

y i f i t cl earl y m i sled th e j ury

and resul ted i n pr ej udice to the a

ppel l an t. Schultz v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter R.R. Corp. , 201 Il l . 2d 260 , 273-7 4 (200 2). 1. Givi ng IPI Civi

l (2000) No. 70.01 in a Comm on Carrier Case Plaint iff ’s first ar gument t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d in instr uct ing t he jur y involves t he deci si on to accept defen

dant’s request to use Ill

in ois Pattern Jury

Instructions, Ci

vi l, No. 70.01 (20 00) (h ere i

na f ter I PI C i vi l (20 00) No. 7 0.0 1). Thi s i ns truc ti on i nf orms th e j ury of the duty of
ev ery dri ver to exer

ci se ordi na ry care . Pl ai

ntif f ass erts th at the tri

al court’s use of a modi f i ed f orm of this i nstruct ion confused the j ury wi th respect to the common carrier’s duty of the hi ghest de gre e of ca re c ons i stent w

i th th at m odeof tran sp ortati on as g i ve n i n I PI C i vi l (20 00) No. 100 .01 . Thes e i

ns truc ti ons we re g i ve n on e a f ter th e other b y the tri al cou rt, w i th th e c om mon ca rri er i n str uc ti on f i rs t: “At the time of the occurrence in question, the Defendant, Pace, was a
co mmo n c ar r ier
. A c o mmo n c ar r ier is n o t a g ua r an t o ro f it s p as se ng er s’ sa fe t y,Nos. 1-0 8-360 5 & 1 -08-36 06 (Cons.)

14

b ut i t h as a d uty to i ts p as se n gers to us e th

e h i gh est de gr ee

of ca recon siste n t wi th the modeof con ve y i ng to you the p racti cal

ope rati on of i ts b us i ne ss asa c om mon carrier b y b us. It’s fai

lure to ful fi ll this duty i s negl

ige nce. It is the dut y of ev

ery driv er of a vehicle usi

ng a publ ic h igh way to exercise ordi na ry care at al l tim es to av oid a col l i sion.” Pl ai n ti f f con ten dsth at th i s i n str uc ti on con f us ed th e j ur y as to wh at stan da rd to ap pl y to defend ant ’s ac t ions. She a rg ues t hat t his was c omp ou nded when d efense co unse l asser t ed d ur ing closi ng th at the tri al court woul

d tell the j ury that the l aw re qui res a l l dri vers to ex ercise ordi

na ry car e t o a void a co lli

sion a nd ar guing t hat Kwidd o per at ed his bu s in a re aso nably safe manner and that he exercised

ordi na ry care wh en slam m i ng on the b rakes to avoid a col

l i sion. Defend ant ar gue s t hat bot h instr uct ions w er e nec essa ry t o fu lly and a ccu ra t ely instru ct t he jury o f all of defend ant ’s du t ies in this c ase . D efenda nt highlights t he disc uss ion d ur ing t he i n str uc ti on con f er en ce wh er e th e c our t opi n ed th at b oth i n str uc ti on s w er e n

ec es sa ry f or th e j ur y to unde rst and bo t h Kwidd’ s du t y to ot her dr ivers a s we ll as his dut y to his pass enge rs. Defend ant
n otes th at p l ai n ti f f ’s cou n se l cl ari f i ed th i s b y sa y i n g th at I PI C i v i l (2 00 0) No. 70 .01 appl

i ed to driv in g whi le IPI Civ il (2000) No. 100.01 appli

ed to passengers and di

d not o bj ect when the tri al
co ur t affirmed t hat inter pr et at ion. Fur t her mor e, defend ant not es t hat no o bject ion wa s made by pla in tif f to the comm

ents duri ng cl osin g argumen

t regarding the stan

dard of care and the i

ssue wa s no t r ais ed in he rmo t io n fo ra n ew t r ial. W e do n ot f

i n d th at th e u se of b oth of th es e i n str uc ti on s c l ea

rl y m i sl ed th e j ur y l eadi n g to pr ej udi ce to pl ai n ti f f ’s ca se . Th e c om mon ca rri er i n str uc ti on wa s m ade s pe ci f i ca l l y appl i ca b l e toNos. 1-0 8-360 5 & 1 -08-36 06 (Cons.)

15

de f en da n t an d th e j ur y wa s i n f orm ed th at i f i t di d n ot ex ercise th e h i gh est de gr ee of ca reto i ts pas seng er s it s hou ld be fo und ne gligent . T he se co nd ge ner al instr uct ion p ro per ly i nst ru ct ed t he jury as t o t he ge ner al dut y of all driver s o n t he r oa d. As de fendant ar gue s, it app ear s fro m the
re co rd t hat at t rial bo t h par t ies re co gnized t he co nsist ency o f the instr uct ions a nd t hat one standard applie d to the passen gers and the other to dr iv in g general ly . The i nstructions were cl

ear in pla ci ng the h igh er standard of care an

d duty speci

fi cally on defen dant and that fa

il ure to me et th at d uty con sti tute d n eg l i gen ce , a

n d th e tr i al cou rt di d n ot ab us e i ts d i scre ti on i n gi v i n g b oth instruct ions. 2. T he So le P r o ximat e C au se I nst ruc t io n o f I PI Civil ( 20 00 ) No . 12
. 04 ( Lo ng Fo r m) The s econd issue

regardi ng j ury i nstructions i s the tri al

court’s use of

the long f

orm of IPI Ci vi l (2000 ) No. 12.04 . Pl ai

ntif f ass erts th at the tri

al court erred

i n gi vi ng th e j ury the l ong f orm inst ea d o f giv ing t he sho r t fo r m as she ha d r eq ue st ed
. I PI Civil ( 20 00 ) No . 12
. 04 r ea ds in fu ll:

“ Mor e than

one pe rs on m ay be to bl am e f or ca us i ng an i njury. If you deci de that a [the] defendan t[s] was [were] negli

gent and that hi s [thei

r] neglige nce wasa proxi

mate ca use of i nj ury to the pl ai ntif f , i t is not a de f en se that som

e thi rd person who i s not a party to t he sui t may al so have b een to bl am

e. [H ow ever , if you d ecide t hat t he so le pr oximat e ca use of injury t o t he pla in tif f was the conduct of some person other than the def endan t, t hen your verdict sh oul d be f or the de f endan t.]” T he no t es fo rt his in st ruc t io n ind ica t e t ha t t he se co nd pa r ag r ap h sh o uld be us ed o nly wh ere there is ev

i den ce ten di ng to sh ow the s ole

proxi mate ca use of the occu

rren ce was a th

i rdNos. 1-0 8-360 5 & 1 -08-36 06 (Cons.)

16

pe rs on. IPICi

vi l (20 00) No. 1 2.0 4, N oteson U se , at 5 7. P l ai nti f f arg ue s th at the l ong f orm of the i ns truc ti on waspre

j udi ci al be ca us e i t al l owe d the j ury

to ab sol ve de f en da nt f rom i ts ob l i ga ti on to provi de th e hi ghe st degr ee of care dem anded of a com mon ca rri er. Pl ai ntif f ass erts th at there
wasno ev

i den ce that the v

ehi cle was

a ca use of the i nj ury, m uch l ess the s ole proxi mate ca use . She a rg ues t hat t he t est imony tha t t he we at her was po or , t her e exist ed a likelihoo d an o nco ming
vehi cle woul d pas s an d cut i n f ront of the b us, a nd d ef endan t train ed i ts dri vers tha t these f actors all r eq uir ed r ed uc ed sp ee d a nd so o ne rbr ak ing , o nly su pp o r t a fin din g t ha t de fen da nt wa s t he so le pro xi mate cause. Accord in

gly , she concludes that it was err or t o t ender the sole pro xi mate cause i nstructi on. Graves v. Wor nson , 56 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 87 3, 879- 80 (19 78). W e d i sa gr ee . A s state d a

b ov e, de f en da n t re i terate s th at a trial cou rt d oes n ot ab us e i ts dis cr et io n in ins t r

uc t ing t he jur y if an in st ruc t io n c o rr ec t ly st at es t he law an d is su pp o r t ed by so me evidenc e. Plaint iff

’s r eliance o n Graves

is unava ili

ng. In Graves , t he de fendant s ar gue d t hat t he sol e p rox i mateca us e of an ac ci de nt wasan

onc om i ng truck that c rea

ted an em erg en cy si tua ti on by at t emp t ing t o pa ss ve hic les wh en it ha d in su fficie nt sp ac e t o do so . T he T hir d D ist r ict o f t his court reverse d the

j udgm en t of the tria l court f or the de f endan ts, f i ndi ng th e us e of the l ong f orm of the i nstruction was n

ot supported by the record. The court o pin ed that the record indicated th at th e p as si n g tr uc k w as ab l e to s af

el y re tur n to i ts o wn l an e of tra v el b ef oreth e def

en da n ts
r ea ch ed it an d n o eme r ge nc y sit ua t io n w as cr ea t ed
. T he r efo r e, it fo un d t he r e w as no so le pr ox i mate ca us e of i n j ur y an d i t wa s rev er si b l e error to i n str uc t th e j ur

y re ga rd i n g s ol e p rox

i mate caus e. Graves , 56 Ill . App. 3d at 879-80.Nos. 1-0 8-360 5 & 1 -08-36 06 (Cons.)

17

We f i nd th at there wassuf f i ci en t evi den ce pre sen ted to in struct the j ury wi th the l ong f orm of I PI Civil (200 0) No . 1 2. 04. Again, Kwidd t est ifi ed t hat t he vehicle a ppr oa ched in the left lane and h e deem ed i t li kel y tha t it would try an

d cut in f ront o f the b

us to t he ri

ght lan e. Kwidd testi f i ed th at h e c ov er ed th e b ra ke , the v eh i cl e n ar row l y m i ss ed h i tti n g th e b uswh en i t cu t i n f ron t, when the veh ic le got in the righ t lane it stopped suddenl

y to make a sharp ri ght turn, and Kwi

dd
was for ced t o br ake har der . U nlike in Graves , t he r e w as no ev ide nc e t ha t t he t hir d p ar t y sa fely returned to its l

ane of travel

and i t could not be the sole proxi ma te cause. The j ury was

charged with de termi ni ng K widd’ s credi

bi li ty an d appl yi ng the proper weigh

t t o t hat to det ermi

ne wh ether the d ri ver of th e thi rd v ehi cle was

the s ole proxi mate ca use . 3. C ontr i bu tory Ne gl i ge nc e In stru cti on Pl ai ntif f ’sf i na l argum en t on app eal

i nv olv es the tri al

court’s use of the con

trib utory negl ige nce i nstruction. Pl ai

ntif f argues that t he ev

ide nce at trial

concl usi vel y de mons trat ed that she was not guil ty of contri

butory negl

ige nce an d it was prej udic ia

l e rror t o give

such an i n str uc ti on . Pl

ai n ti f f argu es th at Brow

ne is on p oint on t his issue a nd r equ ires a finding tha t t he trial court erred. Fi rs t, we note tha t plai nti f f prov i de s on l y a g en era l ci tati on to Brow

ne wi th out a n y pi n ci te t o t hat co ur t ’s disc uss ion o f this issu e. Fur t her mor e, plaint iff do es no t pr ovid e any ana lysi s o f the Brow ne co ur t ’s t re at ment o f co nt ribut or y negligence . T his co ur t is not a r epo sito ry wher e t he bu rde n of arg um en t an d re se arc h m ay be dum pe d a nd wewi l l not s cou r th e re cord

to de ve l op argumen t for a party. See Collins v. Mid-America Bag Co. , 179 Il l . Ap p. 3d 79 2, 794 ( 1989)
. W h i l e w e do n ot f

i n d th at p l ai n ti f f h as f orf ei ted th i s iss ue , w e do f

i n d th at Brow ne doe s n otNos. 1-0 8-360 5 & 1 -08-36 06 (Cons.)

18

sup po rt plaint iff

’s ar gument and find t hat t he t rial co ur t did no t abus e its discr et ion in t ende ring thi s i nstructi on. As def endan t argues , Brow

ne is dis tingui shable from this case an d, more i mportantly

, does not hold that a pla

in tif f can not be found gui

lty of contrib

uto ry n egl ige nce i n a com mon c arrier
cas e. In Brow

ne , the c our

t sta ted th at th er e w as n o i ss ue of con tri b utor y n eg l i gen ce

su b m i tted to the jury because the trial court found that the plai

ntif f was in the exerci se of ordin

ary ca re for her saf ety and the onl y i ssue was wh ethe r the d ef endan t was n egl i gen t. Brow ne , 19 Ill . App. 3d at 917. At best , t he court ’s treat men t o f thi s iss

ue was dicta and not aut hority t o sup por t p lai ntiff ’s
ar gu ment . E ven if Brow

ne st o o d fo rt his p r o po sit io n, t he fac t s o f t he ca se ar e d ist ing uis ha ble beca use , a s t he t rial co ur t not ed in ac cep t ing t his instr uct ion, t her e wa s co nfli ct ing t est imony wh ethe r plai ntif f wasstan di ng a t the ti me of the acci den t and wh ethe r she exercised

ordi na ry care i n f ai l i ng to rea ch f or an y pole or h an dle w he n s tan di ng up. A cc ordi

ng l y , th e tri al cou rt di d n ot abus e its discr et ion in giving t his instr uct ion. C. Rule 2 19 S anct ions Fi na l l y , de f en da nt a ppe al s th e tri al cou rt’ s g ran t of Rul e 2 19 s an

cti ons . The p urp ose

of gran tin g sa nc tions i s n

ot to pun i sh a party , but to ef f ectuate the g oal s of

di scovery . Adams v. Bath & Body Works, Inc. , 358 I ll . App. 3d 38 7, 395 ( 2005). The trial court is cl early in the best posi tion to determ

i ne how to app l

y court rules a

nd r ul es of procedu re i n pa rtic ul ar ca ses . In re Marriage of Baumgartner , 38 4 I ll. A pp . 3d 39 , 64 ( 20 08 )
. Pe na lt ies r an gin g fr o m a r ea so na ble attorney f ee to m onetary pen al tie s m ay be i m posed ev en i f the om i ssi ons a re i nadve rtent. Gonzalez v. Nissan N

orth America, Inc. , 3 69 I ll. App. 3d 4 60, 464 (2 006 ). The re for e, we g ra ntNos. 1-0 8-360 5 & 1 -08-36 06 (Cons.)

19

gre at d ef ere nc e to the tri

al cou rt i n d ete rm i ni ng whether th

ere wa s a cl ea r ab us e of i ts d i screti on i n f ash i oni ng a san cti on. Ashford v. Ziemann , 99 Il l . 2d 353 , 368 (1 984). Ru l e 2 19 (c ) p rov

i de s, i n perti n en t pa rt: “I f apa r t y, o ran y pe r so n a t t he ins t an ce o f o rin c o llu sio n w it h a pa r t y, unreasonab ly

fai ls to compl y w ith an y provisi on of part E of articl e II of the rules
o f t his c o ur t ( Dis co ve ry, R eq ue st s fo rAd miss io n, an d P r et r ial P r o ce du r e) o rfails to compl y w ith an y order entered under these rules , the court , on motion, m ay en ter, i n addi tion to rem edi

es e l sew here sp eci f i cal l y provi ded, s uch orders a s are jus t, incl udin g, among others, the fol

lowi ng:
*** (ii ) That the offen

din g party be de

barred f rom f il in g any ot her pleadi ng relatin g to any issue to which

the refusal or fai

lure relates; (iii) Tha t t he o ffending pa rt y be deba rr ed fr om maint aining any pa rti cul ar cl ai m , c oun tercl ai m , th i rd -p ar ty com pl ai n t, or d ef ense re l ati n g to that issue; (iv ) That a witness

be b arred from testi fy

in g concerni

ng that is sue; (v) That, as to clai

ms or defens es asserted i

n an y pl eadi ng to whic

h t hat issue is mat er ial, a jud gment by default be ent er ed a gainst t he of f en di ng pa rty or th at the of

f en di ng pa rty 's ac ti on b e di sm

i ss ed wi th or without prejudi

ce;Nos. 1-0 8-360 5 & 1 -08-36 06 (Cons.)

20 * * * In l i eu of or i n a ddi ti on to th e f oreg oi ng , th e c ourt, u

pon moti on or

upon i ts ow n i ni ti ati ve , m ay i m pos e u pon the of f en di ng pa rty or hi s or he r attor ne y , or b oth , a n appr opri ate

sa n cti on , w h i ch may i n cl ud e a n ord er to pa y to th e oth

er pa rty or par t ies t he amo unt of r eas ona ble expe nses incu rr ed a s a r esu lt o f the misc o nd uc t , inc lud ing a r ea so na ble at t o rne y fee , an d w he n t he misc o nd uc t is wil ful, a monetary

penal ty. Wh en appropriate, the court may , by contempt proc ee di ng s, c om pe l obe dien ceby an y pa rty or pe rs on to a ny su bp oen a i ss ue d or order entered under these rules . Not withs tandin g the entry of

a j udgme nt or an o r de ro f dis miss al, wh et he rvo lun t ar y o rinvo lun t ar y, t he t r ial c o ur t sha ll re t ain jurisdi ction to enforce, on i ts own motion or on the motion of any party, any

order imposing mo net ar y sanct ions, including su ch o rd er s as may be e nt er ed o n mot ions whi ch were pen

din g hereunde

r prior to the fi

li ng of a n ot ic e or motion seeki

ng a jud gme nt o ro r de ro f dis miss al. Wh ere a sanction i s i

mposed un

der this paragraph (c), the judge

shal l s et for t h wit h spe cificity the re aso ns and basis o f any sanct ion so impose d eit her in the j udgm en t order i tself or in a se parate wri tten order.”

210 Il l . 2d R. 2 19(c). As noted above, after Lich to r refused to pro duce his tax documents and “ resigned” as a wi tnes s, pl ai ntif f suc ces sf ull y moved to bar h i s testi mony and f or san cti ons. Th

e tri al court gran ted pl ai ntif f l eav e to fi l e a pe titi on f or attorney

tim e an d costs r elated to Li

ch tor’s de posi tion
.Nos. 1-0 8-360 5 & 1 -08-36 06 (Cons.)

21

At t rial, p laintiff fi

led her pet itio n for at t or ney fees a nd co st s pu rsu ant t o R ule 21 9( c) , w hich the trial court granted, with sl igh t modifi cation of att orney fees , during post trial proceedings. Def endan t hi ghl i ghts the l i ne of c ase s tha

t em phasi zes that sa nc tions un

der R ul e 219 are not pecuni ary, b

ut are t o be desi

gned to eff

ectuate discovery . See Adams , 358 Ill . App. 3d at 395 ; Cirr incione v . Westm inster

Garden s Ltd. Par

tnership , 352 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 75 5 (200 4). Defend ant not es t hat t hese cas es p ro vide t hat sanc t ions mus t also be just and p ro po rt ionat e t o t he offense or t hey are subjec t t o r ever sal. D efenda nt maintains t hat t he t rial co ur t gr ant ed s anct ions only after trial was compl

eted and that this ca

n onl y b e vi ewed as “ purely puni tive” as i t requires de fen da nt t o pa y a s ign ifica nt pe na lt y t o pla int iff, de sp it e t he jur y ver dic t in it s fa vo r . De sp it e t his argu ment, defendant not es that the t rial court appr opr iately act ed in respo nse by

barring Lichtor ’s test im ony - i n the same order it grant ed plai ntif f l eave to fil e a petition for cost s and fees
. Defend ant asse rt s t hat its a ct ions t hat gave rise t o t he sa nct ion o rd er wer e r eas ona ble and do not war ra nt sanc t ion. Defend ant admit s t hat it beg an having p ro blems secu ring d oc ument s and
com m un i ca ti ng wi th Li ch tor b ef ore th e d ep osi ti on. How ever, i

t arg ue s th at thes e i ss

ue s d i d n ot l ead i t to b el i ev e th at h e w oul d r es i gn . L i ch

tor r ef us ed to co ope ra te wi th b oth pa rties an d b oth parti es a cted i m medi atel y i n re spon se to ba

r Li ch tor. De f en da n t n otes th at p l ai n ti f f sh ar es i n th e r es ponsi b i l i ty f or th i s a s s h e a l so h ad a d uty to com m un i ca te. P l ai nti f f di d n ot com m un i ca te her c onc ern

ove r th e m i ss i ng doc um en ts a nd di d n ot pres en t the i ssue to the court that the d ocum en t sub poena h ad n

ot been com pli ed wi th. De f en da nt m ai nta i ns tha t the i ns tan t sa nc ti ons do n ot serv e to i

m prov e di sc ove ry when the ac ti onNos. 1-0 8-360 5 & 1 -08-36 06 (Cons.)

22

wasal ready com pl eted b ut are un f ai rl y one-s i ded a s pl

ai ntif f al so f ail ed h er duty to assur e di sc o ve ry r an ef

fic ien t ly. Plaint iff re spo nds t hat t he t rial co ur t clear ly stat ed it s findings and re aso ning for sanc t ions du r ing t he pr et r ial a nd po st t r ial he ar ing s. T he co ur t fo un d t ha t it wa s e vid en t t ha t Lic ht o rwo uld not be produci ng th e requ i red docu men ts an d tha t thi s wa s tol d to def

endan t. The c ourt de term i ne d that on

l y ba rri ng Li ch tor’ s te sti mony di d n ot sta y “ wi thi n th e s pi ri t nor the i nte nti on of [Rule ] 219(c).” Plai

ntif f n ot es that because the tri al court hel d that Lich

to r could easi

ly have been wit hd r aw n a nd sa ve d p laint iff’s t ime a nd r es o ur ce s, in o r de rt o mak e R ule 21 9( c) mea ning ful, pl ai n ti f f wa s e n ti tl ed to f ee s a n d c ost s. She a

rgue s th at th e s cop e of

th e r ul e is b roa d a n d b y i ts plain langua ge ve st s discr et ion t o t he t rial co ur t t o fa shion t he bes t re medy for eac h situ at ion. She
mai n tai n s th at th e tr i al cou rt c orre ctl y de ter m i n ed th at b ar ri n g L i ch tor w oul d n ot prom ote di sc o ve ry an d w as no t a s an ct io n a s d ef en da nt it se lf so ug ht t ha t r eme dy. We f irst note that defenda

nt’s argum

ent that plai

ntif f coul d have comm

unicated better doe s n ot f al l on de af ea rs . We a gr ee th at b oth pa rties m us t b e p roa cti

v e a n d op en l y com m un i ca te in or der t o e ffect uat e o pen a nd efficient disco ver y. Ho weve r, base d o n t he r eco rd we d o no t find that t he trial

court abused i

ts discretion in

im posin g the sanction of atto rney fees and costs rela

ted to Li ch tor’s de posi tion
. Fi rst, defendan

t’s argumen

ts that t hi s was purel

y a postt rial is sue and that a proper sanction--barrin

g Li cthor--was im

posed completely

ign ores the record. Plai

ntif f’ s m ot ion to bar Li chtor and for sanctions, and the tri al court ’s order grantin

g the motions , were fi

le d and en

tered dur i ng pretri al proc ee di ng s. The pos ttri al ac ti on wassi

m pl y the tri al cou rt’ s c ons i de rati

on ofNos. 1-0 8-360 5 & 1 -08-36 06 (Cons.)

23

pl ai n ti f f ’s pe ti ti on f or a ttorn ey f ee s a n d c ost s th

at pre se n ted h er ac cou n ti n g of ti me a n d c ost s pr epa ring fo r t he de po sitio n. D efenda nt was app rised of t he fact it had been s anct ioned dur ing di sc ove ry an d the p osttri

al i ss uewa s s i m pl y an ac cou nti ng . A cc ordi

ng l y , de f en da nt’ s a ss erti

on that t hi s was si

mpl y a postt rial action to obtain som

e m onetary rel

ie f i n l igh t o f the v erdict ri ngs fal se. Secon

d, def endan t its el f moved to remove Li ch

tor in i ts pretri al motion . The

tria l court re viewed all of t his and d et er mined t hat gr ant ing defend ant t he r emedy it s ou ght wit hou t any sa nc t io n w o uld cu t ag ain st t he sp irit an d d es ign o f t he rule
. T he t r an sc r ipt s o f t he he ar ing s c lea r ly sp ec i f i es th e tr i al cou rt’ s rea son

i n g. Th e c our

t f oun d th at i t wa s c l ea r that L i ch

tor r ef us ed to co mply w it h t he do cu men t su bp o en a a nd , mo r e imp o r t an t ly, t ha t de fen da nt wa s a dv ise d o f t his in advan ce of the deposi

tion. Because pl

ai ntif f’ s unn ecessary expense “coul

d have been

prevented by merely a pho ne ca ll,” t he t rial co ur t gr ant ed t he sa nct ion. Ru le 2 19 cle ar ly env isio ns a sa nc t io n o f a r ea so na ble at t o rne y fee an d e xp en se s. T he rule al so grants disc

retion to im

pose a monetary

penal ty whe re the violation i

s wilf ul. Un li ke that
sc en ari o, or the n

um erou s c as esci

ted by de f en da nt w he re th e p en al ty i m pos ed wa s d i sm i ss al of t he ac t ion, t he t rial co ur t did no t impose a pe nalty, but gr ant ed p laintiff the d irect expe nses a nd
cos ts re l ate d s ol el

y to Li ch tor’ s dep osi

ti on. Th e c ourt n

oted tha t Li ch tor h ad nu merou s y ea rs of
ex peri ence testif y i ng i n s uch matters an

d was f am i l i ar wi th produc tion requi rem en ts. Fu r t he r mo r e, t he co ur t st at ed t ha t a p ar t y has t he ab ilit y t o t ell a wit ne ss ex ac t ly wha t is need ed, what must be pr od uce d and pr epa re t hem for suc h pr od uct ion and que st ioning. The
co ur t fou nd t hat defend ant was app rised of t he fact Licht or wo uld no t co op er at e pr ior t o t heNos. 1-0 8-360 5 & 1 -08-36 06 (Cons.)

24

dep os itio n and c ou ld eas ily have be en wit hdr awn. The re co rd sup po rt s t his finding and t hat t he gr ant of fee s and co st s for plaint iff ’s t ime and effo rt was t ed w as a pr op or t ionat e sa nct ion and def endan t does n ot argue that plai

ntif f ’scom putati on of

tim e, f ees and costs was i

nc orrect. Acco rd ingly, it wa s no t an abu se o f discr et ion t o g ra nt plaint iff ’s mot ion fo r sa nct ions a nd sub seq uen t peti tion f or fe es a nd c osts. III. CONCLUSION In l igh t o f the f orego in g, the decis ion of

the trial court is aff irm ed. Af fi rmed. QUINN and COL EMA N, JJ ., conc

ur.Nos. 1-0 8-360 5 & 1 -08-36 06 (Cons.)

25 REPORT ER OF D ECI SION S – ILLI NOIS APPE LLATE COURT

(Front S heet to b e Attac

hed to Each C ase) GERA LDIN E NEW , Plai ntif f-A ppel le e, v. PAC E SUBU

RBA N BUS SERVIC E, a di

vision of REGIO NA L TRA NSIT A UTHOR ITY, a m uni ci pal corporati on,, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. GE RALDI NE NE W, Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, v. PAC E SUBU

RBA N BUS SERVIC E, a Di

vision of Regi onal Tran si t Authority

, a mun icip al co rp or at ion, Defe ndan t-Appell ee. Nos. 1-0 8-360 5 & 1 -08-36 06 (cons.) Appellate Cour t of Illinois Fir st D istr ict, TH IRD Division January 27, 2010 (Giv e mo nth, da y and y ear) PRESIDI NG JU STICE MU

RPHY de li ve red the opi ni on of the co urt: Qui nn and Col em an, JJ., concur [s]
Lo w er C ou rt and Tria l J udg e( s) in f

orm indi ca te d in t he m argi n: The Ho norable James P . Mc Car t hy , Judge Presiding. Indicate if attorney represe nts APPELLANTS o

r APPELLEES and include attorneys o f co

unsel. Indicate the word NONE if not represe nted. At torn ey f or Pla intif f-App ellee

/Appellan

t: Paren

te & Norem

, P.C. Timothy Q uinn 221 N. La Salle

Stree t, Suite 2700 Chic ago, IL 60601 Phon e: 312.641.5926

At torn eys fo r Defend ant-Appel

lan t/Appellee: Kevin V. Boyle

Ca ther ine Ba squ e Weiler Swanso n, Martin & Be ll, LL

P 330 N. Wabash, Sui

te 330 0 Chic ago, IL 60611 Phon e: 312.321.9100 Plea se Use Following For m: Comple te TIT LE of Case

Dock et N o. COURT Opi ni on Filed

JU STICES

APPE AL from th e Ci rcu it Ct. of Co ok Co unty , Cri min al Div.

For APPEL LA NTS, Joh n Doe , of Chi cago. For APPEL LEES, Smith and S mith of Chi cago, Joseph Brown, (of Co unsel) Also add at tor ne ys for third- party ap pe ll an ts or appellees.