Opinion ID: 3134246
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Do you find [name of plaintiff]'s exposure to

Text: diatomaceous earth supplied by  Grefco, Inc. to the Unarco plaint in Bloomington, Illinois was a proximate cause of his silicosis? Yes_____ No_____ In each of the four tendered special interrogatories, the jury responded No in answer to both questions. The jury returned a general verdict in favor of Grefco and the circuit court entered judgment thereon. On appeal to the appellate court, plaintiffs (1) challenged the trial court's rulings with respect to Grefco's affirmative defense of intervening causation and related jury instructions; (2) argued that the court erred in its ruling on the scope of the collateral estoppel issues; (3) charged error in the submission of the special interrogatories to the jury; and (4) contended that Grefco should have been barred from using photographs at trial that were not disclosed until the day before trial. With the exception of the collateral estoppel issue, the appellate court found no reversible error, particularly in light of the jury's clear response to the special interrogatories that found none of the plaintiffs had developed silicosis. However, the appellate court held that a new trial should be granted because of Grefco's continued presentation of the evidence barred by operation of the doctrine of collateral estoppel. 273 Ill. App. 3d at 284. The record in the instant appeal includes 85 volumes spanning more than 17,000 pages, much of which consists of pleadings, motions, and discovery material that was generated by this complex multiparty litigation. As noted, plaintiffs raised only four instances of alleged trial error in their appeal. Three of the four were resolved against plaintiffs in the appellate court and are not under review in the instant appeal.